FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu Server Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-16-2010, 07:33 AM
"Egbert Jan"
 
Default remove dovecot-postfix from lucid

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: ubuntu-server-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com
> [mailto:ubuntu-server-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com] Namens Mathias Gug
> Verzonden: vrijdag 16 april 2010 0:48
> Aan: ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
> CC: ivoks@ubuntu.com
> Onderwerp: RFC: remove dovecot-postfix from lucid
>
>
> Hi,
>
> During the Jaunty release cycle the dovecot-postfix package
> was created in order to make it easier to integrate dovecot
> and postfix. The solution chosen was to not modify the
> default dovecot configuration file and instead generate a
> dovecot-postfix.conf with the correct options. The init
> script was also modified to use the new dovecot-postfix.conf
> file (if available) instead of the default configuration file.
>
> While the goal is worthwhile the implementation seems to not
> be the best option. Using an alternate configuration file
> breaks a lot of common knowledge to the point that an
> upstream developer filed a bug [1] with a patch to dovecot to
> provide additional checks specific to Ubuntu.
>
> [1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dovecot/+bug/511295
>
> Given the LTS status of Lucid I'd suggest to drop the
> dovecot-postfix package in order to avoid carrying a
> non-default/Ubuntu-specific configuration file around for 5 years.
>
> What needs to be done is to update dovecot init script to not
> look for dovecot-postfix.conf and migrate an existing
> dovecot-postfix.conf to dovecot.conf in the maintainer scripts.
>
> I still think the objective is worthwhile and we should spend
> some time at the next UDS to come up with a better implementation.
>
> --
> Mathias Gug
> Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com

Drop it. It was the first thing I did when i was building a new server. Just
use the standard configs. Much clearer.

Egbert jan (NL)


--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 04-16-2010, 07:48 AM
Andy Rabagliati
 
Default remove dovecot-postfix from lucid

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Egbert Jan wrote:

> Drop it. It was the first thing I did when i was building a new server. Just
> use the standard configs. Much clearer.

I agree. Not dovecot/postfix related, but the extra dhcpd.conf (in a different
directory!) for the ltsp config is a major source of confusion and time-wasting.

Standard configs only.

Cheers, Andy!

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 04-16-2010, 09:25 AM
Imre Gergely
 
Default remove dovecot-postfix from lucid

On 04/16/2010 10:48 AM, Andy Rabagliati wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Egbert Jan wrote:
>
>> Drop it. It was the first thing I did when i was building a new server. Just
>> use the standard configs. Much clearer.
>
> I agree. Not dovecot/postfix related, but the extra dhcpd.conf (in a different
> directory!) for the ltsp config is a major source of confusion and time-wasting.
>
> Standard configs only.

Just my two cents... I would agree on the confusion part of the extra
dovecot-postfix.conf config file... It's an attempt to make the servers
more user friendly, which I'm not sure is needed... if somebody wants to
install/configure/administer a mailserver, that's not really an average
user task, the person should know a little bit what he's doing, it
shouldn't be "too easy" and integrated and out-of-the-box...

It should be clear that you have to mess with config files to set things
up and Ubuntu shouldn't make things easier, at least not on servers.
Desktop is another story. IMHO.

--
Imre Gergely
Yahoo!: gergelyimre | ICQ#: 101510959
MSN: gergely_imre | GoogleTalk: gergelyimre
gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 0x34525305

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 04-16-2010, 09:59 AM
Scott Kitterman
 
Default remove dovecot-postfix from lucid

"Andy Rabagliati" <andyr@wizzy.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Egbert Jan wrote:
>
>> Drop it. It was the first thing I did when i was building a new server. Just
>> use the standard configs. Much clearer.
>
>I agree. Not dovecot/postfix related, but the extra dhcpd.conf (in a different
>directory!) for the ltsp config is a major source of confusion and time-wasting.
>
>Standard configs only.
>
I guess we should also drop the non-standard postfix configuration we ship too.

Scott K--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 04-16-2010, 10:39 AM
Aurélien Naldi
 
Default remove dovecot-postfix from lucid

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Imre Gergely <gimre@narancs.net> wrote:
>
> Just my two cents... I would agree on the confusion part of the extra
> dovecot-postfix.conf config file... It's an attempt to make the servers
> more user friendly, which I'm not sure is needed... if somebody wants to
> install/configure/administer a mailserver, that's not really an average
> user task, the person should know a little bit what he's doing, it
> shouldn't be "too easy" and integrated and out-of-the-box...
>
> It should be clear that you have to mess with config files to set things
> up and Ubuntu shouldn't make things easier, at least not on servers.
> Desktop is another story. IMHO.


Hi,

not trying to start a flame war here but I really disagree.

Of course, setting up a mailserver requires some understanding but why
should it require everyone to mess up with a bunch of crypting config
files? Understanding the big picture and having an idea of how things
fit together is important, the detail of the syntax of the config
files isn't (IMHO). I care a lot about educating users and admins but
I also believe that not being too elitist helps.

Many mail servers serve small groups who just want a simple
configuration with a few users. What is needed is receiving and
sending emails, doing some filtering and serving these mails to the
users. For such use cases, I would rather trust a well-thought default
configuration than random fiddling with config files after hours of
reading outdated tutorials. I have been maintaining a mailserver for
an association over a few years and learned a lot in the course but I
really wish it had been less painful: documentation was often
incomplete or outdated, it seems it is getting better though.

Being able to tune things is nice and a requirement for less common
use cases, but why should it be a mess for the simple systems?
Maybe I'm being naive here and there is no such thing as a simple mail
server configuration, but the huge penetration of exchange says at
least that there is a market for it... I would be much more
confortable in a world where more workgroup are able to switch to open
solutions, and this requires making them integrated and easy to set
up.

Fixing shortcomings in the current implementation seems important but
please don't stop providing good default configuration and helpers for
the common needs.

Sorry for the rant, and I want to emphasise that I for one appreciate
a lot the effort to make this less difficult for non-full-time
sysadmins!


Best regards.

--
Aurélien Naldi

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 04-16-2010, 11:17 AM
Scott Kitterman
 
Default remove dovecot-postfix from lucid

"Aurélien Naldi" <aurelien.naldi@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Imre Gergely <gimre@narancs.net> wrote:
>>
>> Just my two cents... I would agree on the confusion part of the extra
>> dovecot-postfix.conf config file... It's an attempt to make the servers
>> more user friendly, which I'm not sure is needed... if somebody wants to
>> install/configure/administer a mailserver, that's not really an average
>> user task, the person should know a little bit what he's doing, it
>> shouldn't be "too easy" and integrated and out-of-the-box...
>>
>> It should be clear that you have to mess with config files to set things
>> up and Ubuntu shouldn't make things easier, at least not on servers.
>> Desktop is another story. IMHO.
>
>
>Hi,
>
>not trying to start a flame war here but I really disagree.
>
>Of course, setting up a mailserver requires some understanding but why
>should it require everyone to mess up with a bunch of crypting config
>files? Understanding the big picture and having an idea of how things
>fit together is important, the detail of the syntax of the config
>files isn't (IMHO). I care a lot about educating users and admins but
>I also believe that not being too elitist helps.
>
>Many mail servers serve small groups who just want a simple
>configuration with a few users. What is needed is receiving and
>sending emails, doing some filtering and serving these mails to the
>users. For such use cases, I would rather trust a well-thought default
>configuration than random fiddling with config files after hours of
>reading outdated tutorials. I have been maintaining a mailserver for
>an association over a few years and learned a lot in the course but I
>really wish it had been less painful: documentation was often
>incomplete or outdated, it seems it is getting better though.
>
>Being able to tune things is nice and a requirement for less common
>use cases, but why should it be a mess for the simple systems?
>Maybe I'm being naive here and there is no such thing as a simple mail
>server configuration, but the huge penetration of exchange says at
>least that there is a market for it... I would be much more
>confortable in a world where more workgroup are able to switch to open
>solutions, and this requires making them integrated and easy to set
>up.
>
>Fixing shortcomings in the current implementation seems important but
>please don't stop providing good default configuration and helpers for
>the common needs.
>
>Sorry for the rant, and I want to emphasise that I for one appreciate
>a lot the effort to make this less difficult for non-full-time
>sysadmins!
>
Well put. There are a LOT fewer requests for help with this kind of setup since we had dovecot-postfix. I think it clearly helps people get started with Ubuntu Server and that is a very Ubuntu thing to do.

Scott K--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 04-16-2010, 02:59 PM
Andy Rabagliati
 
Default remove dovecot-postfix from lucid

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> "Andy Rabagliati" <andyr@wizzy.com> wrote:
>
> >Standard configs only.
> >
> I guess we should also drop the non-standard postfix configuration we ship too.

I guess I should have said standard config *paths* only.

Perhaps ship an alternate dovecot-postfix file in the same directory, with
a README suggesting it can be copied over ?

The thing that bugs me about the ltsp dhcp setup is that a knowledgeable
administrator battles to figure out what is going on. Maybe ltsp is a
special case because of all the interdependent services involved that
might be completely beyond a novice school admin, and pretty much all
fixable with a custom dhcpd.conf.

But a seasoned administrator does not expect to have to look in init scripts.

exim and postfix setup have debconf dialogs to ease the pain - might
dovecot and postfix have Robin Hood/Little John debconf scripts that
spot each others installation ?

Admittedly, all too late for lucid.

Cheers, Andy!

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 04-16-2010, 03:07 PM
Mathias Gug
 
Default remove dovecot-postfix from lucid

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 07:17:18AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >
> >Fixing shortcomings in the current implementation seems important but
> >please don't stop providing good default configuration and helpers for
> >the common needs.
> >
> >
> Well put. There are a LOT fewer requests for help with this kind of setup
> since we had dovecot-postfix. I think it clearly helps people get started
> with Ubuntu Server and that is a very Ubuntu thing to do.
>

I agree with the goals here. We should look into ways to make things simpler.

Providing an easy way to integrate postfix and dovecot seems to answer a
need and is a good objective to tackle.

We've tried one way and we now know the drawbacks of the current
implementation:

* non-standard location of configuration files breaks common knowledge.

Given that lucid is an LTS my proposal is:
* remove the current dovecot-postfix package
* put the instructions in a wiki page on help.ubuntu.com/community/
so that people asking for help can be pointed to the wiki page.
* schedule a session at the next UDS to discuss a different implementation

--
Mathias Gug
Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 04-16-2010, 04:21 PM
Michael Jones
 
Default remove dovecot-postfix from lucid

On 04/16/2010 07:00 AM, ubuntu-server-request@lists.ubuntu.com wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Imre Gergely<gimre@narancs.net> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Just my two cents... I would agree on the confusion part of the extra
>> > dovecot-postfix.conf config file... It's an attempt to make the servers
>> > more user friendly, which I'm not sure is needed... if somebody wants to
>> > install/configure/administer a mailserver, that's not really an average
>> > user task, the person should know a little bit what he's doing, it
>> > shouldn't be "too easy" and integrated and out-of-the-box...
>> >
>> > It should be clear that you have to mess with config files to set things
>> > up and Ubuntu shouldn't make things easier, at least not on servers.
>> > Desktop is another story. IMHO.
>>
> Hi,
>
> not trying to start a flame war here but I really disagree.
>
> Of course, setting up a mailserver requires some understanding but why
> should it require everyone to mess up with a bunch of crypting config
> files? Understanding the big picture and having an idea of how things
> fit together is important, the detail of the syntax of the config
> files isn't (IMHO). I care a lot about educating users and admins but
> I also believe that not being too elitist helps.
>
> Many mail servers serve small groups who just want a simple
> configuration with a few users. What is needed is receiving and
> sending emails, doing some filtering and serving these mails to the
> users. For such use cases, I would rather trust a well-thought default
> configuration than random fiddling with config files after hours of
> reading outdated tutorials. I have been maintaining a mailserver for
> an association over a few years and learned a lot in the course but I
> really wish it had been less painful: documentation was often
> incomplete or outdated, it seems it is getting better though.
>
> Being able to tune things is nice and a requirement for less common
> use cases, but why should it be a mess for the simple systems?
> Maybe I'm being naive here and there is no such thing as a simple mail
> server configuration, but the huge penetration of exchange says at
> least that there is a market for it... I would be much more
> confortable in a world where more workgroup are able to switch to open
> solutions, and this requires making them integrated and easy to set
> up.
>
> Fixing shortcomings in the current implementation seems important but
> please don't stop providing good default configuration and helpers for
> the common needs.
>
> Sorry for the rant, and I want to emphasise that I for one appreciate
> a lot the effort to make this less difficult for non-full-time
> sysadmins!
>
>
> Best regards.
>
> -- Aur?lien Naldi



Hey guys,

I wanted to chime in and share my experience with this. I'm a
senior Software Engineering student at a school in Indiana, USA. I
founded a small company about a year ago, and act as the server admin
for it. We use Ubuntu server because its a good chunk easier to
understand and configure than the other server distro's we tried.

One of the services that we needed to install was a mailserver,
which is the topic of the last few posts. I'll be honest, I spent about
40 hours working on this. A full work-week, and ultimately gave up in
defeat. Part of the problem may be that I'm still learning the ins and
outs, and as such I have no problem admitting that I am the sole point
of failure here.

However, part of the discussion, as in the quoted post above, is
that our mailserver will likely never be used by more than 50 people
total. The actual number now is 3. We identified that complicated
configurations with special tweaks is not cost effective at this time.

As Aurelien Naldi mentions, we initially pondered using exchange
for our mail needs. The cost, and proprietary nature of it make it
unacceptable for us, but we did see the ease of setup to be of value.

I intend to revisit configuring our mailserver when the term of
school gets out, and I have more time. Like I mentioned, I'm sure I just
don't know enough about the topic yet. But users do feel some pain when
configuring services is not very straight forward.

Thank you so much for your work on ubuntu-server. I can't express
how much benefit I've derived from using it.

Have a great day!

-Mike




--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 04-16-2010, 05:45 PM
Douglas Stanley
 
Default remove dovecot-postfix from lucid

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Aurélien Naldi
<aurelien.naldi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Imre Gergely <gimre@narancs.net> wrote:
>>
>> Just my two cents... I would agree on the confusion part of the extra
>> dovecot-postfix.conf config file... It's an attempt to make the servers
>> more user friendly, which I'm not sure is needed... if somebody wants to
>> install/configure/administer a mailserver, that's not really an average
>> user task, the person should know a little bit what he's doing, it
>> shouldn't be "too easy" and integrated and out-of-the-box...
>>
>> It should be clear that you have to mess with config files to set things
>> up and Ubuntu shouldn't make things easier, at least not on servers.
>> Desktop is another story. IMHO.
>
>
> Hi,
>
> not trying to start a flame war here but I really disagree.
>
> Of course, setting up a mailserver requires some understanding but why
> should it require everyone to mess up with a bunch of crypting config
> files? Understanding the big picture and having an idea of how things
> fit together is important, the detail of the syntax of the config
> files isn't (IMHO). I care a lot about educating users and admins but
> I also believe that not being too elitist helps.
>
> Many mail servers serve small groups who just want a simple
> configuration with a few users. What is needed is receiving and
> sending emails, doing some filtering and serving these mails to the
> users. For such use cases, I would rather trust a well-thought default
> configuration than random fiddling with config files after hours of
> reading outdated tutorials. I have been maintaining a mailserver for
> an association over a few years and learned a lot in the course but I
> really wish it had been less painful: documentation was often
> incomplete or outdated, it seems it is getting better though.
>
> Being able to tune things is nice and a requirement for less common
> use cases, but why should it be a mess for the simple systems?
> Maybe I'm being naive here and there is no such thing as a simple mail
> server configuration, but the huge penetration of exchange says at
> least that there is a market for it... I would be much more
> confortable in a world where more workgroup are able to switch to open
> solutions, and this requires making them integrated and easy to set
> up.
>
> Fixing shortcomings in the current implementation seems important but
> please don't stop providing good default configuration and helpers for
> the common needs.
>
> Sorry for the rant, and I want to emphasise that I for one appreciate
> a lot the effort to make this less difficult for non-full-time
> sysadmins!
>
>
> Best regards.
>
> --
> Aurélien Naldi
>
> --
> ubuntu-server mailing list
> ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
> More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam

I think we should avoid shipping a package that more or less just
sticks an extra config
file in a non standard place.

If the goal is to make it easier for a new user to configure a
mailserver, then how about
writing some tools to generate a proper config file instead?

How hard would it be to create a more or less "template" config file,
then run a tool
that prompts the user for the desired input, fills out the template
and then puts the
config into the standard place?

Isn't that more or less what happens when dpkg configures postfix anyway? Am I
missing something that would make this task so difficult it's not worth doing?

I would vote for not shipping just an extra (potentially confusing)
config in a package
name that could also possibly confuse people, when there could be a
better way to
make it end user friendly.

Just MHO...

Doug

--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:40 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org