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

[Seth Kurtzberg <seth@cql.com>]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:26:43 -0600
Charles Cazabon <qmail@discworld.dyndns.org> wrote:

The main objection here seems to be that it is necessary to apply patches to 
get certain features.

To me, it's preferable to have a small set of core functionality to add 
additional features I need using patches, for a number of reasons.  I like to 
know what optional features are in use.  I can apply a patch to test a feature, 
and if I find that I don't like the results, I can easily remove it.  If a 
better way of handling a feature becomes available, I know what needs to be 
changed to use it.

I'm at a loss as to why the application of a patch is considered to be onerous.

> 
> And, as Roger said, you saying those features need to be "used on every MX
> server" is offensive to the mail administrators who have decided they do not
> need those features.
> 
> Instead, say "I believe *I* need these features in my environment, because
> ..." and stop assuming things about what other mail admins need.
> 
> Charles
> -- 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Charles Cazabon                               <qmail@discworld.dyndns.org>
> Read http://pyropus.ca/personal/writings/12-steps-to-qmail-list-bliss.html
> My services include qmail consulting.  See http://pyropus.ca/ for details.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>