also sprach gordonr:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Peter Green wrote:
> > also sprach gordonr:
> > > > 1) Re: virus scanning, are the developers aware of the scan4virus
> > > > program[1]? It requires a simple patch to qmail (QMAILQUEUE, very stable),
> > > These patches almost certainly violate the qmail binary distribution
> > > licence.
> > Doesn't the big-DNS patch do the same?
> <personal hat>
> I'd like to remove that patch
> </personal hat>
Unfortunately, every time AOL or someone else decides to break DNS again
(and it's *still* happening, from what I understand), mail breaks. And it's
usually a rather large ISP that breaks it. (The problem kind of requires a
large ISP in the first place.)
So who else isn't in love with DJB's licensing?! :-)
> > Does smtpd convert the bare LFs to CR/LF?
>
> Will check - can't remember offhand.
It looks like it does, simply by the architecture. smtpd fully accepts the
mail, just as if it were a full MTA. It then resubmits the mail to the
backend MTA (qmail); my guess is that it does the CR/LF conversion.
> > [...]
> > Not to belabor the point, but do they include the ezmlm-idx patch?
>
> More correctly, we have ezmlm-idx RPMs. Last I looked, the licence is not
> the qmail licence.
Interesting; I hadn't looked at this before. It looks like ezmlm is under
Dan's proprietary license, while the ezmlm-idx patch is GPL'd. Which makes
it look as if ezmlm(-idx) binaries are in the same boat as qmail. Yuck.
/pg
--
Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
The smart man can pick up a grain of sand and envision a whole universe, but
the stupid man will find some seaweed and roll around untill he's all covered
in it and go, 'Hey! I'm vine man!'
(Jack Handey)
