Well.. One other "related" thing that would need to be updated if you
want Maildir mail handling is the modification of the "skeleton"
directory/User Add/Del Scripts.
If you used qmail w/Maildir, the rpm would need to modify the User Add
scipts and skeleton Directory to set up new users properly. It could
also be made smart enough to get rid of the /var/mail directory.
Same for User Del, it would have to know to not bother with /var/mail
Matt Soffen
Webmaster - http://www.iso-ne.com/
==============================================
Boss - "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers."
Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX."
Boss - "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said
never mind."
- Dilbert -
==============================================
> ----------
> From: Fred Lindberg[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Reply To: Fred Lindberg
> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 1998 11:30 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail
>
> On 23 Dec 1998 06:40:20 -0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
>
> >I tried to work with Donnie Barnes. I put a lot of effort into making
> >qmail distributable in binary form. But he isn't willing to guarantee
> >cross-platform compatibility. It saddens me that he hasn't been
> honestly
> >telling his users the nature of our disagreement.
>
> RedHat has SECURITY announcements. Often, the problem is that the
> package is screwed up, not that the source program itself is.
> Directories have the worng permission, etc. They fix it and the
> announcement clearly states that it was the _package_ not the
> _program_. This would not give qmail a bad name. RedHat may well screw
> it up, but that's [mainly] their problem.
>
> RedHat already distribute "non-free" packages, i.e. packages with
> restrictions above GPL. They do not need to make qmail _the_ redhat
> MTA, just make it avaialble as an option.
>
> What we need is one good and secure rpm. I want maildir, not some
> stupid mbox spool. RedHat are likely to do the latter for ease of
> sendmail compatibility. So, I'll keep building qmail on my [redhat
> linux] system. However, I'd rather the rest of the word used a
> partially screwed up qmail than sendmail.
>
> So, DJB and DB are both 100% correct. A compromise, is worth more
> than
> the sum of the merits of both points of view.
>
>
>
> -Sincerely, Fred
>
> (Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
>
>
