I really agree with Dion.
I've been using qmail in several servers in different enterprises with
incredible success.
But there's a lot of time that I stopped using the pure qmail-1.03 with LWQ
instructions. And I bet a lot of are in the same situation.
I've did several scripts to compile tcpserver and install, then copy its man
pages (different package) to the right place, the same to supervise, then
apply several patches to qmail, compile it, install it, create /service
stuff, create and install init scripts for svscan and qmail and etc.
Isn't it a lot of work? And I need to install gcc & friends in most machines
just to install qmail. I've got binaries of course, but I don't use them in
different enterprises, since AFAIK DBJ license doesn't permit it. If I'm not
responsable for the machine I believe I'll be redistributing the binaries.
I agree that keeping qmail frozen is a tremendous security advantage and DBJ
license is a really secure one, but c'mon, shouldn't we've some more
flexibility?
Isn't it time at least for a new version with those few patches Peter said?
With a more flexible license?
[]s
Davi
On Friday 02 March 2001 14:35, you wrote:
> Please forgive my naivete as I am new to qmail and this list, but hearing a
> statement such as yours, Peter, gives me pause to consider: If there may
> not be future development, am I betting on a dead (or dying) horse?
>
> What is wrong with some of the requests that have been asked for? Granted,
> some of the functionality is available as a patch, but should not some of
> those patches be incorporated into the main code base if doing so would
> make qmail easier to setup, configure, and run without the new qmail
> administrator having to download and install a series of patches that
> affect the core functionality of qmail?
>
> Being new, I may be off base with these questions, but I am just trying to
> get a better understanding of what the future of qmail is. If DJB is no
> longer interested, or able, to continue development of qmail, could he not
> pass the reins to someone else? There seems to be a great pool of talent on
> this list, I'm sure someone would be interested in continuing development.
> (although I am not one who could, due to my pathetic programming skills)
>
> Not trying to start a flame war or anything, just trying to get a better
> understanding of the reasons.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Dion Vansevenant
> Internetwork Administrator
> MRO.com
>
>
>
>
> Peter van
> Dijk To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <peter@datalo cc:
> ss.nl> Subject: Re: New qmail version
> request
>
> 2001/03/02
> 10:43
>
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 04:15:37PM +0100, Paco Gracia wrote:
> > I'd like to see a configure option to support smtp with authentication in
> > the official qmail release.
>
> Please stop this thread. A new qmail version is not likely to happen,
> and if it does, it'll probably contain very few patches that are
> already available.
>
> Greetz, Peter.
