Tomasz Klim <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 06 November 2003 10:06: > Hi, > > I have a few suggestions about qmail-ldap: > 1. It shouldn't be distributed as one 905KB patch. > 2. Instead of this, it should be splitted to a set of files: > - patches to individual (already existent) qmail-files > - new files, in their unmodified form > 3. It shouldn't contain any 3rd-party patches, like tarpit/maildir++. > 4. Am I right, that latest qmail-ldap patch contains the > complete imap solution? -> See 3. > > What do >>YOU<< think about it? I like to see some comments, > and suggestions. > > And what does André Oppermann think about it?
Tomasz, I agree with your suggestions concerning the qmail-ldap patch and have argued for this on the qmail-ldap list. Here's the response from Claudio Jeker: "qmail-ldap comes as a bundle of features a ISP needs. It is complete so that no other patches are needed and if you do not configure them you will end with a behaviour like stock qmail. Also most of the stuff you find as external patches has been integrated in a different way in qmail-ldap. So it is almost impossible to apply one of those patches. Also the maintenance of a qmail-ldap patch set is exponentially more complex with no gain. So if you like to have a list of all patches applied read QLDAPNEWS and QLDAPINSTALL and compare the features with the list of patches a www.qmail.org. If you have a patch that absolutly needs to be included you could send a request to the list." I suggest you take this discussion to the qmail-ldap list as it's really off-topic for the qmail list. R.
