Kudos to HopelessNoob for tackling his Sisyphean cleanup task - I'd like to get a 2nd opinion, though, on a question he has closed, which I guess links up to my not really understanding his thinking about the documentation tag.

Case: Getting a feel for postfix

Content:

I've been running Postfix servers for four years, and one whose reliability is important to me for a year and a half. While it's working well enough, with zero unplanned downtime in that time, I find Postfix configuration to be complete voodoo. In particular:

1. Rewriting rules - I have no feel for what Postfix is up to. I administered an Exim mail server some years back, whose approach to rewriting made sense to me. 2. Security - I have internalised no threat model for Postfix. Securing Postfix to me means avoiding changes to config files that don't keep to the letter of advice from a trusted source, and keeping Postfix up-to-date. 3. Encryption - I'd like to know the role that things like SASL, TLS, &c, can play in the life of a Postfix server.

What should I read to get a clue about these things? I think I'd prefer an article or report to a howto or book.

Guess as to original tags: postfix, email, documentation

The post got an off-topic close vote (special reason: "Requests for product, service, or learning material recommendations are off-topic because they attract low quality, opinionated and spam answers, and the answers become obsolete quickly. Instead, describe the business problem you are working on, the research you have done, and the steps taken so far to solve it.") from masegaloeh and was mod-hammered by HopelessNoob, I assume because it was a documentation request and, as such, it was triaged out. But I think the question does not fulfil the close requirments as stated:

1. It does document the business problem: having a mission-critical postfix installation (my freelancing business really does need non-cloud-hosted email) in a one-man business where the sysop (me) didn't understand what was going on.
2. The research I had done was documented: not in the question, but in the comment thread to Greeblesnort's answer I wrote 'Did you find the Postfix site was adequate to get a substantive feel for how Postfix went about things? I certainly count it high among my "trusted sources", but the time I've spent with it so far hasn't yet given me "a good understanding of the architecture".'
3. The steps taken to solve my ignorance were not laid out at the time of closure, although I think that subpoint was not really behind the close.

Can my question be reopened as it stands, on the grounds that this close did not fit the close reasons well enough? If not, what kind of changes would the question need to receive to become a good question.

Kudos to HopelessNoob for tackling his Sisyphean cleanup task - I'd like to get a 2nd opinion, though, on a question he has closed, which I guess links up to my not really understanding his thinking about the documentation tag.

Case: Getting a feel for postfix

Content:

I've been running Postfix servers for four years, and one whose reliability is important to me for a year and a half. While it's working well enough, with zero unplanned downtime in that time, I find Postfix configuration to be complete voodoo. In particular:

1. Rewriting rules - I have no feel for what Postfix is up to. I administered an Exim mail server some years back, whose approach to rewriting made sense to me. 2. Security - I have internalised no threat model for Postfix. Securing Postfix to me means avoiding changes to config files that don't keep to the letter of advice from a trusted source, and keeping Postfix up-to-date. 3. Encryption - I'd like to know the role that things like SASL, TLS, &c, can play in the life of a Postfix server.

What should I read to get a clue about these things? I think I'd prefer an article or report to a howto or book.

Guess as to original tags: postfix, email, documentation

The post got an off-topic close vote (special reason: "Requests for product, service, or learning material recommendations are off-topic because they attract low quality, opinionated and spam answers, and the answers become obsolete quickly. Instead, describe the business problem you are working on, the research you have done, and the steps taken so far to solve it.") from masegaloeh and was mod-hammered by HopelessNoob, I assume because it was a documentation request and, as such, it was triaged out. But I think the question does not fulfil the close requirments as stated:

1. It does document the business problem: having a mission-critical postfix installation (my freelancing business really does need non-cloud-hosted email) in a one-man business where the sysop (me) didn't understand what was going on.
2. The research I had done was documented: not in the question, but in the comment thread to Greeblesnort's answer I wrote 'Did you find the Postfix site was adequate to get a substantive feel for how Postfix went about things? I certainly count it high among my "trusted sources", but the time I've spent with it so far hasn't yet given me "a good understanding of the architecture".'
3. The steps taken to solve my ignorance were not laid out at the time of closure, although I think that subpoint was not really behind the close.

Can my question be reopened as it stands, on the grounds that this close did not fit the close reasons well enough? If not, what kind of changes would the question need to receive to become a good question.