Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW

Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So it might well be that those SMTP servers, that accept mail regardless > of the existence of the recipient mailbox, take load off your server's > spam processing, because they eat spammer's resources. I rather use a MTA that implements SMTP time delays t

Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW

This one time, at band camp, Gerrit Pape said: > Finally, just as not supporting VRFY, not rejecting in the SMTP > conversation makes it harder for the spammers to sort out bad recipient > addresses, and so to use their resources even more efficiently. That is so stunningly wrong an argument I can

Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW

Hi, On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 11:05:31AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > Out of curiosity, does netqmail fix at least the delayed bounce > problem? no, or maybe: not yet; they gave notice of including that, but nothing happened yet http://marc.info/?l=qmail&m=120275739720434&w=2 On Thu, Dec 04,

Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW

* Gerrit Pape: > Right now, upstream doesn't completely agree with Andree's list of > bugs. Out of curiosity, does netqmail fix at least the delayed bounce problem? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW

Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've yet to be pointed to a grave or serious bug in the packages pending > in NEW, otherwise I see no reason why they shouldn't be processed and > pass NEW. I completely agree with this well written post Does the package in NEW fix the well known backscat

Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW

On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 11:29:13AM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote: > Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi, I'm quite surprised how the inclusion of qmail and related packages > > into sid is handled, or rather not handled, by the ftpmasters. > > I downloaded the netqmail source from http://dbn.

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

Bjørn Mork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't >> have a problem with qmail being included in Lenny. > You are aware of upstream's attitude towards security holes? There are > lots

Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW

Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, I'm quite surprised how the inclusion of qmail and related packages > into sid is handled, or rather not handled, by the ftpmasters. I downloaded the netqmail source from http://dbn.smarden.org/sid/ and looked briefly at it, to see if most of the well

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't > have a problem with qmail being included in Lenny. You are aware of upstream's attitude towards security holes? There are lots of assumptions like "nobody will ever do ...".

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

* Bernd Eckenfels: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: >> Personally, I'm more concerned about manual constant propagation in >> some parts of the code base (like using the integer literal 4 for the >> size of an IPv4 address), and similar coding style issues. But this >> is certainly not

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > Personally, I'm more concerned about manual constant propagation in > some parts of the code base (like using the integer literal 4 for the > size of an IPv4 address), and similar coding style issues. But this > is certainly not restricted to qmail (Bern

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

* Gerrit Pape: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 03:33:43PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Joerg Jaspert: >> > First - the packaging is nowhere near the standard Debian aspires to in the >> > archive: >> > >> > Qmail is an MTA and as such should follow Debian Policy (for example >> > Section >> > 11.6

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 08:51:01PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:12:42 + > Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lacking any response, I can only guess what the reason for the delay > > is. > > IMHO, the response has been given and your replies have not provided > s

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 03:33:43PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Joerg Jaspert: > > First - the packaging is nowhere near the standard Debian aspires to in the > > archive: > > > > Qmail is an MTA and as such should follow Debian Policy (for example Section > > 11.6). It's therefore not a very

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

David Kaufman wrote: > Hi Moritz, > >> Neil Williams wrote: >>> It isn't just about choosing not to install it, it causes work for the >>> various teams in Debian - security, release, QA. >> We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't >> have a problem with qmail being

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

* David Kaufman: > The Security Team has responded that it has no objections to adding > qmail to Lenny. Just to clarify, there are no objections with regard to security support. This does NOT mean that we want to see qmail in the archive while there are other open issues (as outlined in the rej

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

* Joerg Jaspert: >>> It isn't just about choosing not to install it, it causes work for the >>> various teams in Debian - security, release, QA.=20 >> We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't >> have a problem with qmail being included in Lenny. > > Are you aware tha

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

* Joerg Jaspert: > On 11583 March 1977, Gerrit Pape wrote: > > As i got asked for the complete text of the rejection mail, as the > thread start only had a partial quote, here it is. Thanks! > First - the packaging is nowhere near the standard Debian aspires to in the > archive: > > Qmail is an

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

[resending, didn't see my last message make it to the list] Hi Moritz, "Moritz Muehlenhoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > > Neil Williams wrote: > > It isn't just about choosing not to install it, it causes work for the > > various teams in Debian - security, release, QA. > > We've discussed this a

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

"Neil Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Joerg Jaspert wrote: >>> Aside from these technical - and possibly fixable - problems, we >>> (as in the ftpteam) have discussed the issue, and we are all of >>> the opinion that qmail should die, and not receive support from >>> Debian. As such we *

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

[resending, b/c I still didn't see my last message make it to the list] Hi Moritz, "Moritz Muehlenhoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > > Neil Williams wrote: > > It isn't just about choosing not to install it, it causes work for the > > various teams in Debian - security, release, QA. > > We've disc

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

Hi Moritz, > Neil Williams wrote: > > It isn't just about choosing not to install it, it causes work for the > > various teams in Debian - security, release, QA. > > We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't > have a problem with qmail being included in Lenny. > > Che

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

Twas brillig at 00:40:50 01.12.2008 UTC+01 when [EMAIL PROTECTED] did gyre and gimble: Md> I need to remind everybody that sadly it is a dependency of Plesk Md> (the only high quality administration panel software) so it's still Md> going to be installed anyway on many Debian servers. Md> Ma

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

On Nov 30, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Qmail is dead upstream and requires a whole set of patches to even begin to > work in the manner expected of a modern MTA. Given this, the fact that this > means there is also no upstream security support, and the fact that Debian > already co

Re: what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: Re: qmail and related packages in NEW)

Am 2008-11-28 15:42:34, schrieb William Pitcock: > I think issues like these call for an unsupported repository outside of > Debian, but publicized within the community as an unofficial repository > for things like qmail, packages unwanted in Debian proper for the time > being, etc.

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

On 11583 March 1977, Gerrit Pape wrote: As i got asked for the complete text of the rejection mail, as the thread start only had a partial quote, here it is. --88--- From: Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: netqmail_1.06-1_powerpc.

Re: what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: Re: qmail and related packages in NEW)

Bas Zoetekouw wrote: > > For completeness sake: QA does not thow out orphanes packages just for > being orphaned. If they are orphaned, RC-buggy, hardly used, and > alternatives are available, only then they are candidates for removal. You missed Debconf8's BoF I guess. > > Bast regards, > Bas

Re: what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: Re: qmail and related packages in NEW)

Raphael Geissert dijo [Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:05:23PM -0600]: > William Pitcock wrote: > [...] > > > > The ideal way to handle this would be to have a single repository. PPAs > > solve a different problem, which is giving contributors and developers a > > playground to publish their in-progress p

Re: what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: Re: qmail and related packages in NEW)

William Pitcock dijo [Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 06:57:37PM -0600]: > (...) > What I propose is something more along the lines of Gentoo's "sunrise" > overlay... a repository that anyone can get upload access to provided > that they understand basic Debian policy and have established that they > will be

Re: what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: Re: qmail and related packages in NEW)

Miriam Ruiz dijo [Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 02:37:16AM +0100]: > > DDs would be discouraged from participating since they should be > > supporting packages/etc within Debian instead. > > I'm not exactly sure about this. I have quite a lot of packages that I > made for my own usage but I don't have time

Re: what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: Re: qmail and related packages in NEW)

Romain Beauxis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (29/11/2008): > Or > mentors.debian.net ? Source-only. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

* Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-29 13:22]: > > >> It isn't just about choosing not to install it, it causes work for the > >> various teams in Debian - security, release, QA.=20 > > We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't > > have a problem with qmail b

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

On 2008-11-29, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> It isn't just about choosing not to install it, it causes work for the >>> various teams in Debian - security, release, QA.=20 >> We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't >> have a problem with qmail being

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

>> It isn't just about choosing not to install it, it causes work for the >> various teams in Debian - security, release, QA.=20 > We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't > have a problem with qmail being included in Lenny. Are you aware that qmail and its related

Re: what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: Re: qmail and related packages in NEW)

Hi Paul! You wrote: > basically the Debian answer to Ubuntu's universe. The main reason I > started thinking about this was that I got annoyed when QA folks chuck > orphaned packages (i've changed my mind about this since though). For completeness sake: QA does not thow out orphanes packages jus

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

Neil Williams wrote: > It isn't just about choosing not to install it, it causes work for the > various teams in Debian - security, release, QA.=20 We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't have a problem with qmail being included in Lenny. Cheers, Moritz -

Re: what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: Re: qmail and related packages in NEW)

William Pitcock wrote: [...] > > The ideal way to handle this would be to have a single repository. PPAs > solve a different problem, which is giving contributors and developers a > playground to publish their in-progress packages. This is more about > getting packages to users in an efficient way

Re: what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: Re: qmail and related packages in NEW)

Le Friday 28 November 2008 23:57:09 Holger Levsen, vous avez écrit : > On Friday 28 November 2008 22:42, William Pitcock wrote: > > I think issues like these call for an unsupported repository outside of > > Debian, but publicized within the community as an unofficial repository > > for things like

Re: what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: Re: qmail and related packages in NEW)

Hi, On Sat, 2008-11-29 at 02:19 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > On Saturday 29 November 2008 01:57, William Pitcock wrote: > > What I propose is something more along the lines of Gentoo's "sunrise" > > overlay... a repository that anyone can get upload access to provided > > that they under

Re: what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: Re: qmail and related packages in NEW)

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:28:58 +0900 Paul Wise wrote: > Infrastructure should be similarly supported and hosted by mainly > non-DDs; buildds, porting machines and so on. Actually I was thinking about something similar yesterday. Asa non-DD it is very hard to reproduce bugs from arches you don't own

Re: what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: Re: qmail and related packages in NEW)

2008/11/29 Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > DDs would be discouraged from participating since they should be > supporting packages/etc within Debian instead. I'm not exactly sure about this. I have quite a lot of packages that I made for my own usage but I don't have time or interest in maintaini

Re: what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: Re: qmail and related packages in NEW)

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 6:42 AM, William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think issues like these call for an unsupported repository outside of > Debian, but publicized within the community as an unofficial repository > for things like qmail, packages unwanted in Debian proper for the time >

Re: what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: Re: qmail and related packages in NEW)

Hi, On Saturday 29 November 2008 01:57, William Pitcock wrote: > What I propose is something more along the lines of Gentoo's "sunrise" > overlay... a repository that anyone can get upload access to provided > that they understand basic Debian policy and have established that they > will be non-ma

Re: what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: Re: qmail and related packages in NEW)

Hi, On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 23:57 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > On Friday 28 November 2008 22:42, William Pitcock wrote: > > I think issues like these call for an unsupported repository outside of > > Debian, but publicized within the community as an unofficial repository > > for things lik

Re: what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: Re: qmail and related packages in NEW)

Hi, On Friday 28 November 2008 22:42, William Pitcock wrote: > I think issues like these call for an unsupported repository outside of > Debian, but publicized within the community as an unofficial repository > for things like qmail, packages unwanted in Debian proper for the time > being, etc. d

what about a unofficial public community repo? (was: Re: qmail and related packages in NEW)

Hi, On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 20:51 +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > > Can you advise me on how to get out of that dilemma? > > Stop trying to get qmail into Debian? > or > Take on upstream development of qmail and solve all the problems > (whether qmail will then be recognisable compared to the existin

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:12:42 + Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, I'm quite surprised how the inclusion of qmail and related > packages into sid is handled, or rather not handled, by the > ftpmasters. Just because a package is free software does not mean it automatically qualifies f

qmail and related packages in NEW

Hi, I'm quite surprised how the inclusion of qmail and related packages into sid is handled, or rather not handled, by the ftpmasters. Within a time-frame of six months I received exactly one rejection mail in response to two uploads of the packages, a reply to the rejection mail, and three mails