"Lyndon Griffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>thanks everyone for the quick response... now, my next question - does it
>not seem a little extreme to say that simply
> "qmail 1.03 no longer supports inetd."
>and then link to the ucspi-tcp package, which you kinda have to figure out
>for yourself that that's what the link is trying to tell you, when it is, as
>you all say, quite possible that qmail-smptd WILL run under inetd (maybe OS
>dependent)?
"A little extreme"? Perhaps. But there's a fine line between saying "X
works" and saying "X is supported". DJB tends to say what he means, so
when he says "X is unsupported", that shouldn't be interpreted as "X
doesn't work".
>Or is the intent of Russ and DJB to get us all downloading and using
>software which we all still argue about licensing over, which in the end
>they will come out and charge us for back usage or get the hell off?
That's silly, if not paranoid and delusional.
>Sure, that's an extreme scenario, but maybe THAT's the kind of information
>we should see on the site - with no room for misinterpretation, this package
>runs on some inetds - click here to see the list. Oh, and by the way, we
>recommend that you instead use our ucspi package, which only costs $x in
>licensing fees.
It's not about $ or market share. Inetd isn't supported (by those who
don't support it, including DJB and other qmail list members) because
it's a support nightmare. If *you* want to support it, feel free:
answer inetd questions here, publish the ultimate qmail+inetd web
site, etc., but don't stamp your feet and demand that other people
support it.
>What I'm hearing a lot of on this list and on the web site is "qmail is
>great, everything else is broken," which I'm prone to believe, but the
>longer I hang around, it seems exactly the opposite.
Neither is true, but qmail (and other djbware) is less broken than 99%
of the alternatives...in my personal experience.
If you think the opposite, what are you doing here?
-Dave
