On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 03:23:46PM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: adam, thank you for taking the time to reply.
> On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 13:12 +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > > Package: exim4 > > Version: 4.24-3 > > You do realise that the version quoted above is nearly three and a half > years old? It's even eight upstream releases older than the version in > sarge. for report purposes, it'll do. (on my live server i have the latest version). > > this bug is in response to several bug reports which i have raised > > regarding exim4, which are all to do with improving exim4. each and > > every such bug has been treated with derision. > > As far as I can see, you've submitted two bug reports against the Debian > exim4 packages in the past four years, both asking for a change to the > default configuration which the maintainers disagreed with. That is > their prerogative it is NOT their prerogative to disagree. well, it is - if they want to abdicate the responsibility that goes with being a free software developer or maintainer. read the report. read _especially_ the fact that it goes into great detail comparing debian with ubuntu, as a case study. the bottom line is this: being a free software developer comes with the responsibility to be all things to all people. it is NOT the prerogative of free software developers to say "no, you cannot do that, because i do not like it, understand it, or agree with it". it's like bus routes being privatised, and the "unprofitable" routes being shut down. we are responsible for running a _public service_, not a corporation. so - EVERYTHING should be added (and disabled by default) so that people can CONVENIENTLY switch things on if they want to, instead of having to piss about. > and there are established procedures which exist if > you believe you have a good case to get a technical decision overturned. "a man convinced against his will, will be of the same opinion still." but i appreciate you letting me know that such procedures exist, because i did always wonder what i would do if something _really_ was important. > Your public interaction with upstream appears to consist of a single > thread on exim-users in February, in which you claimed exim was broken > because it allowed an empty envelope sender to be used i was under pressure to sort out a live problem where significant amounts of spam were getting through by someone sending faked empty envelope (due to me following advice to the letter that is written down in the exim4 cyrus22 HOWTO which is included in the debian cyrus package!) assigning the issue solely and exclusively to the "empty envelope sender" was a mistake in _my_ understanding, which (off-list) someone kindly corrected. based on that assistance and very kindly supplied information, i pursued the issue further, for a further sixteen hours. however, unfortunately, because that was a "known issue", and because i use cyrus22, all brains of the developers were then "switched off" due to excessive boredom at having to deal repeatedly with an issue which is claimed to be the fault of the cyrus22 debian maintainers. so, i further tracked the bug down to an issue in the LMTP transport handling of exim4, and endeavoured to demonstrate and/or fix the problem, using my LIVE server as the testing area because i didn't have access to a test machine at the time. the problem is this: i really _did_ find a bug - but because all developer brains by that time were assigned to /dev/null, nobody wanted to deal with it - or listen. so i figured "fuckit, fuck the whole thing, and fuck them." btw - in case you're wondering, i'm still trying to work out how to switch off my temper, which flips from zero to redline in about a quarter of a second, and get more patience. l. -- -- lkcl.net - mad free software computer person, visionary and poet. -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
