Dave Sill writes:
> "Racer X" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >so we can all see the huge number of patches that are listed on
> >www.qmail.org, and i'd be willing to bet that anyone who has used qmail for
> >more than a day or so has had to use at least one of those patches.
>
> You'd lose. I've used qmail heavily for three years and I don't use
> any patches anywhere.
I'm only using the rbl patch, and that only because I wrote it before
Dan wrote rblsmtpd.
> >it might be interesting if people had a way to rate the usefulness of
> >various patches, both for general usefulness and how well the patch
> >integrates into qmail (that is, whether it should really be a patch or a
> >separate program).
>
> It would be interesting to know who's using which patches and why. One
> of Dan's main objections to patches is that they make it hard for him
> to tell what really needs to be changed in qmail. If one has problem X
> with qmail, and there's a patch that fixes problem X on www.qmail.org,
> most people just install the patch and never complain to Dan.
The problem with that theory is that, when someone complains to Dan,
he dismisses their concern as trivial and frivolous. Given the choice
between being insulted, and actually getting your problem solved by
installing a patch, which would you choose?
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
