Francisco Lozano writes: > For we who don't know deeply about these issues... > > Why are maintained two different trees for qmail-ldap and > qmail-ldap-control? > And why very commonly used and tricky-to-patch packages like SMTP-AUTH > aren't included in none of these trees? > > I think that the work Turbo is doing is really worth a merge into the > qmail-ldap main tree, just like the smtp-auth patch.... why aren't they? > > Thank you guys for doing such a good work, we have one of the best MTA > platforms available at no cost and with the sources available, and issues > like the above ones make using this platform more difficult than (I think) > it should be.
Actually a better solution would be many little patches maintained in one project rather than one large patch. This way people could pick and choose which code to add on top of the original qmail. Not everybody needs SMTP-auth and dash-ext.
