Qmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [djb@koobera.math.uic.edu: qmail 1.00 available]

To: qmail@list.cr.yp.to
Subject: Re: [djb@koobera.math.uic.edu: qmail 1.00 available]
From: DAve <dave.list@pixelhammer.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:20:07 -0500
Delivered-to: sp-com-lists@consult.net
Delivered-to: gmail-qmail@securepoint.com
Delivered-to: sp.com.list@gmail.com
Delivered-to: mailing list qmail@list.cr.yp.to
In-reply-to: <20070222140051.76cdabb9.sasa@admin-networks.org>
Mailing-list: contact qmail-help@list.cr.yp.to; run by ezmlm
References: <20070222042303.GA74985@lizzy.catnook.local> <20070222140051.76cdabb9.sasa@admin-networks.org>
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516)
Sasa Ugrenovic wrote:
Ok .. i have a question.

Is qmail usable ? I used qmail for 5 years before I switched to postfix.
I hope DJB reads this, because qmail is obsolete... you have to apply a million 
patches (which have backward compatibility issues) to have a decent functional 
SMTP.
Greylisting, helo checks, blabla ..

A million patches! I would certainly like to see a diff between your qmail sources and a standard source tree.

Why would a MTA that requires a few patches be any worse than an MTA that requires several complete upgrades a year. Sendmail users waited with baited breath for Milters (Postfix still doesn't fully support the concept), qmail has always allowed the milter concept by design. Add a line in your smtpd run file and you are done. Simple, secure, manageable.

Monthly changes to stay secure and usable is good?

If DJB simply added the Netqmail patches, added a set of test scripts, and made a twice a year release with changes to the test scripts and the README file, admins like you would be all over it. Recompiling, scheduling downtime, pinging the list for news on the "Next Version", when in fact it would not be any different.

A patch is a diff, nothing more. For all you know the Postfix author has a release source tree and moves his updates between his dev sources and release sources with diff, creating *OMYGAWD* patches. In which case Postfix would have far more patches than qmail does.

The release date has little to do with the software's ability, it has nothing to do with the software's usability, it will never have anything to do with the software's state of security.

DAve

Post Script
Remember the frustration in the Slackware camp when RedHat got the attention because it was considered more current?

http://slackware.com/faq/do_faq.php?faq=general#0



This is not a flamebait, i still use qmail/vpopmail on servers behind my MX 
processor which doesn't run qmail, since I'm not a zaelot.

Kind Regards,
Sasa

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:23:03 -0800
Jos Backus <jos@catnook.com> wrote:

Congratulations, Dan. On to the next 10 years...

----- Forwarded message from "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@koobera.math.uic.edu> -----

Date: 21 Feb 1997 21:38:51 -0000
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@koobera.math.uic.edu>
To: djb-qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu
Subject: qmail 1.00 available

qmail 1.00 is available through http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail.html.

No code changes from 0.96. I have lots of cleanups scheduled, and I'll
have to add IPv6 support someday, but 1.00 should be an adequate MTA for
the next several years.

---Dan


----- End forwarded message -----

--
Jos Backus
jos at catnook.com




--
Three years now I've asked Google why they don't have a
logo change for Memorial Day. Why do they choose to do logos
for other non-international holidays, but nothing for
Veterans?

Maybe they forgot who made that choice possible.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>