This one time, at band camp, Turbo Fredriksson said: > So to be or not to be is irrelevant - the question is: are we > ALLOWED to distribute it or not?
No, actually the question is whether it's worth Debian's time to maintain it, distribute it, and support it. qmail is one of the few pieces of software I've ever seen that is so poorly written that it's author recommends running it under a supervisor because it can't stay running on it's own. It also doesn't support most useful features any reasonable MTA can be expected to support without fairly extensive patching. So, right, the argument we're left with is, it's quick and it doesn't have many apparent security flaws. The fact that it's a poor netizen and is also unstable, featureless, and trivially replaced with things that do respect the FHS are IMHO more important. If someone actually cares, I suppose I'll say go ahead, but what a waste of time and energy. The world has moved on and qmail has been made irrelevant because of it's original licensing decisions. I think that at this point, qmail serves better as an object lesson in license idiocy than as a serious candidate for the archive. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
