Can you update the following URL to correctly reflect the Postfix packages I
produce for RedHat Linux:
The URL at the bottom can be replaced with:
http://postfix.WL0.org, or ftp://ftp.WL0.org
If required I can send a patch for the file on the website.
I don't produce anything for RedHat Linux, weird bug. Better just close it. You
don't seem to be bothered about it anyway. Best just get rid of that old
documentation. Are you going to do something?
It looks like the Bugzilla database is wrong. The original report was made by
myself (email@example.com), the Bugzilla DB appears to be reporting this
incorrectly. So Peter, why you are included in the report I just don't know.
Anyway back to the bug report...
The bug exists. The URLs referenced (of my web page) are no longer correct, I'm
having to maintain them to ensure that people find my site.
I'm still getting referrals from RedHat's serves so people are still reading the
Postfix FAQ and HOWTO. Thus I would not suggest that RedHat remove the
If you find this documentation is out of date and you no longer wish to maintain
it, then please put this at the fron of the 2 documents and refer people to
Postfix's main web page http://www.postfix.org.
However I would appreciate it if the URLs requested are updated so I can remove
a domain I should not now be using (ea4els.ampr.org)
This has been pending since 10/2002 which is 7 months. Will it get actioned
some time? (please)
Thanks and regards,
Simon Mudd, Postfix RPM packager
"So Peter, why you are included in the report I just don't know."
I, Petri (well equals Peter in english), use Postfix and advocade it, but
otherwise I have no idea. =)
Mike Harris, sorry for bothering, but I know you are active one. (Atleast on
IRC, heh heh.) ;-)
I have nothing to do with postfix.
the web team has now fixed the original bug with the url. was there
some reason this was moved to be a "bugzilla" bug? well, someone
close the bug if you don't want it around.
I think whole FAQ
is totally out of date.
Component is bugzilla because I never reported this bug, Simon Mudd
did. Still I am marked as Reporter: and clearly I am not. See comment #2.