<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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?
This is a complicated and rather politicized set of questions. I can
give you my opinion, which I believe is reasonably informed and fairly
objective.
Dan is, we think, working on qmail 2, but it's a radically different
queueing mechanism, rather than an incremental development. He
doesn't talk about release dates.
> 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?
Dan's is the only opinion that matters, in terms of getting features
into future releases. He likes the approach of using external tools
as much as possible. It's secure and flexible. He *doesn't* like
messing with core functionality without big paybacks; anything you
mess with there can break security or reliability, so it takes very
careful work and testing. Keeping qmail small and simple is also
important for security and performance.
--
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
