From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org)
	by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-user+bounces-72438-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@gentoo.org>)
	id 1J0kXB-0008Kx-J5
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 21:14:58 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id lB7LDckr015515;
	Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:13:38 GMT
Received: from smtp2.cybercity.dk (smtp2.cybercity.dk [212.242.43.252])
	by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lB7L9I6G010633
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:09:18 GMT
Received: from user2.cybercity.dk (user2.cybercity.dk [212.242.41.35])
	by smtp2.cybercity.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E914313C64
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri,  7 Dec 2007 22:09:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.0.0.3] (port78.ds1-abs.adsl.cybercity.dk [212.242.227.17])
	by user2.cybercity.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 624C42866DC
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri,  7 Dec 2007 22:09:18 +0100 (CET)
From: Bo =?utf-8?q?=C3=98rsted_Andresen?= <bo.andresen@zlin.dk>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Emerging virtual/editor installs nano - why?
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 22:07:46 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7
References: <2457217.LCgPyxjfGR@kn.gn.rtr.message-center.info> <200712071637.30019.bo.andresen@zlin.dk> <ae1cf3f40712070958h49c8832doc7390c67449d7072@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ae1cf3f40712070958h49c8832doc7390c67449d7072@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
  boundary="nextPart6091186.S3YWFslBxJ";
  protocol="application/pgp-signature";
  micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200712072207.49939.bo.andresen@zlin.dk>
X-Archives-Salt: 81cf94f4-baa4-4460-b524-e6fe6910de99
X-Archives-Hash: d4c35b37fddf3f51a376522dfa80e87f

--nextPart6091186.S3YWFslBxJ
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Friday 07 December 2007 18:58:57 Alexander Skwar wrote:
> > You are right except for the fact that virtual/mta will not be converted
> > any time soon (if ever). Old style virtuals allow their providers to
> > block all other providers by blocking the virtual. This isn't possible
> > with the current format for new style virtuals so it isn't going to
> > happen. editor didn't need that feature and thus could easily be
> > converted...
>
> Ah, okay. Pretty bad situation, though, isn't it? I mean,
> with the way it is now, we've got some virtuals which
> work with virtuals and some, which don't. Do you happen
> to know, if there's a bug which should rectify this
> broken situation?

If by 'broken' you mean 'inconsistent' then I can assure you that there are=
=20
plenty of much more important bugs open... ;) But I guess bug #148251 shoul=
d=20
be of interest in reference to virtual/mta. Personally I happen to hate old=
=20
style virtuals and want them dead asap. As you can see on the bug there's n=
ot=20
much indicating that'll happen anytime soon though..

=2D-=20
Bo Andresen

--nextPart6091186.S3YWFslBxJ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc 
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBHWbYl8/kKEzmwNNoRAjb3AKDaTj//vTY+rILsYY/A0xaRwU79swCfQNvf
AaoHcyMFfYSJdllR881pPA4=
=/PVB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart6091186.S3YWFslBxJ--
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list