[HN Gopher] Why Postfix is called Postfix and IBM secure mailer
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Why Postfix is called Postfix and IBM secure mailer
        
       Author : gurrone
       Score  : 72 points
       Date   : 2022-03-28 15:13 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (marc.info)
 (TXT) w3m dump (marc.info)
        
       | geocrasher wrote:
       | A neat bit of history. Just the name Postfix has always conjured
       | up in mind that it was fixing a problem. And anybody who's ever
       | used Sendmail knows which problem it was fixing :D There's also
       | qmail, but we don't discuss that in good company.
        
       | _nickwhite wrote:
       | How many greybeards here remember the O'reilly Sendmail bat
       | book[1]? I built an ISP off of deciphering cryptic sendmail.cf
       | parameters from it. This is what the "fix" in Postfix aims to
       | "fix".
       | 
       | (Although the Postfix config files are no walk in the park
       | either.)
       | 
       | [1] https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/sendmail-4th-
       | edition/97...
        
         | slillibri wrote:
         | But you don't need to know cryptic sendmail.cf parameters, you
         | can just use m4 macros which are totally not cryptic at all.
        
           | kstrauser wrote:
           | For the benefit of those fortunate enough to have never had
           | to configure that beast, you can find any number of
           | terrifying examples. Here's one: https://tldp.org/LDP/nag2/x1
           | 4661.html#X-087-2-SENDMAIL.MC.UU...
           | 
           | From that, we see                 LOCAL_NET_CONFIG       #
           | This rule ensures that all local mail is delivered using the
           | # smtp transport, everything else will go via the smart host.
           | R$* < @ $* .$m. > $* $#smtp $@ $2.$m. $: $1 < @ $2.$m. > $3
           | dnl
           | 
           | Clear as day, right?
        
             | em-bee wrote:
             | it's been a few decades that i had to deal with sendmail (i
             | have a vage memory of having read the whole book on it,
             | though i could be wrong because i also remember joking that
             | i was waiting for the movie instead of reading the book)
             | 
             | anyways, after staring at this for a few minutes and
             | without looking up any syntax, a few things became
             | noticeable:
             | 
             |  _R$* < @ $* .$m. > $*_ is matching a pattern, with each $*
             | being assigned to $1, $2 and $3 respectively.
             | 
             | $m must contain the local domain. so effectively this
             | pattern matches any mail addressed to a host with the local
             | domain.
             | 
             |  _$#smtp_ if that pattern matches, use smtp,
             | 
             |  _$@ $2.$m._ by connecting to $2.$m. (which means, just use
             | the host that was specified in the original mail)
             | 
             |  _$: $1 < @ $2.$m. > $3_ (not sure what this part does. my
             | guess is: rewrite the email address as specified here, that
             | is in this case don't rewrite it at all.)
             | 
             | it's terse, but regular expressions are worse than this
             | particular example.
             | 
             | now i need to go look up the syntax to see how much i
             | actually got right.
             | 
             | for example i have no idea what the $3 parameter is for. i
             | am guessing $1 is the part before the @ in an email. $3
             | could be the From address or have something to do with
             | alternate addressing schemes
        
               | kstrauser wrote:
               | There were lots of people who could read this for a
               | living. I was more or less able to at one point. Wow, I'm
               | glad that I don't have to anymore, though, in much the
               | same way I'm glad I never had to learn TECO.
        
           | vlowther wrote:
           | You can now. That was not always the cas e, and that is one
           | of many reasons I used postfix instead of sendmail back in
           | the day.
        
           | rodgerd wrote:
           | Poe's Law in full effect.
        
         | INTPenis wrote:
         | You made an ISP, this guy made Turtle Race[1]. What was that
         | about Postfix being complex? ;)
         | 
         | 1. https://www.linusakesson.net/programming/sendmail/index.php
        
       | locusofself wrote:
       | I thought it was a play on "pustefix" which is the name of a
       | German bear that is on these bubbles:
       | 
       | https://www.google.com/search?q=german+bubbles+bear&rlz=1C1C...
        
       | locusofself wrote:
       | Postfix is good software, but I do not miss managing email
       | servers.
        
         | 2ion wrote:
         | As a hobby mail everything is fun (from MUAs to sieve). If it
         | needs to be reliable it's not. Don't miss self-hosting my email
         | service either ("has the response to my application arrived or
         | did I fail to receive it").
        
       | tyingq wrote:
       | Interesting contrast where the "post" in Postgres is there for
       | the other meaning of post.
        
       | tptacek wrote:
       | It wasn't originally called Postfix; it was VMailer.
        
       | smcl wrote:
       | > "post" was a different word for "mail",
       | 
       | this is clear
       | 
       | > and "fix" was for Sendmail
       | 
       | this is unclear. I don't know how you get "fix" from "Sendmail"
        
         | Bootvis wrote:
         | Sendmail was the problem, Postfix was the fix.
        
           | smcl wrote:
           | Ah nice, so it's more like:
           | 
           | > "post" was a different word for "mail", and [the
           | application was itself a] "fix" ... for Sendmail
        
       | jchook wrote:
       | I always thought of "postfix" as in prefix, infix, and postfix
       | operators[1].
       | 
       | Curious if this was an intentional pun.
       | 
       | 1.
       | https://panda.ime.usp.br/pythonds/static/pythonds_pt/02-EDBa...
        
       | Spooky23 wrote:
       | This was a thing at IBM at that time. I remember eyerolling at a
       | new employer where we per paying a few thousand dollars per
       | server from "IBM-SSH".
       | 
       | IBM-SSH consistent of some IBM guy replacing every instance of
       | "OpenSSH" with "IBM-SSH". One of the interns noticed with one
       | release the find replace hit the man pages.
        
       | ossusermivami wrote:
       | ah the good old days, when a bunch of MTA was coming out (exim,
       | vmail, qmail and postfix) to replace sendmail cf and m4
       | atrocities.
       | 
       | It's interesting to see that the most popular who came out as
       | "winner" has been postfix,
       | 
       | altho these days most people would setup a relay with msmtp going
       | to a closed source provider than full fledged postfix/cyrus
       | service
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-03-28 23:01 UTC)