[Dovecot] realtime backup with LDA?

[Charles Marcus]

On 2/24/2014 12:12 PM, Stan Hoeppner <stan at hardwarefreak.com> wrote:
> On 2/24/2014 8:42 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> On 2/24/2014 8:39 AM, Stan Hoeppner <stan at hardwarefreak.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2014 6:58 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2014 3:58 AM, Steffen Kaiser <skdovecot at smail.inf.fh-brs.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I would add a BCC recipient in the MTA. It's more save in such
>>>>> situation. See the thread about qmail and multiple recipients for one
>>>>> mail address.

>>>> The only downside to this is all of the original headers are *not*
>>>> preserved in the BCC copy.

>>> Given this is a function of the MTA,

>> Says who? I would argue that it is more a function of the MDA.

> Says both Steffen's remarks above, and your reply to them. Why you would take exception to my simply reiterating the context is inexplicable.

My comment about how it would work if/when using bcc settings (missing 
Steffen's reference to qmail, thus failing to limit my reference to 
postfix's use of the bcc settings) does not equate to my agreeing with 
the idea that 'it is the function of an MTA'.

It *can* be a function of an MTA, but it can also - and I would/have 
argued that it is more appropriately - a function of the MDA (the 
relevant part of that acronym being 'Delivery').

I took exception to the tone of your comment that I 'would ass-u-me that 
everyone on the list uses my MTA of choice'.

>>> are you stating with authority that all the dozen or so Unix MTAs
>>> behave in this manner? Or are you simply stating the behavior of your
>>> MTA, and assuming everyone on the list also uses your MTA?

>> Obviously the latter (postfix)... apologies for my presumptuousness.

> It's not at all obvious, which is why I asked.

I think it is obvious, since the alternative (that I can speak with 
authority with respect to 'the dozen or so Unix MTAs') is highly 
unlikely, even impossible - which is also why I took exception to the 
comment. It appeared, in my view, to be a comment aimed solely at 
chastising me for making a simple mistake of context, and that, again, I 
missed Steffen's reference to qmail (god, who uses that ancient, 
unmaintained thing anymore).

> When one makes a blanket statement such as that above, with 'not' in *bold* print, the statement needs to be qualified. This is precisely why I asked the two questions.

And I apologized for presuming to assume that everyone uses postfix...

-- 

Best regards,

Charles