On Tue, 18 May 1999, Fred Lindberg wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 1999 17:35:09 +0200 (CEST), Balazs Nagy wrote:
>
> >Anyone who don't want to install ucspi-tcp. You cannot say 'qmail-smtpd is
> >not inetd conform' because it's not true. This is a bigger issue than
> >patching qmail - you cannot sell a qmail-solution without move a step back
> >and check it's integrity. IMHO qmail itself is a robust server, without
> >patches. Patches can add more functionality but more weaknesses too. I
> >cannot belive in patches which are will remain just as patches.
>
> Don't patch qmail, use ucspi-tcp/daemontools. You can't blame Dan for,
> after giving you a perfect solution, not being willing to make a poor
> one slightly better.
Well, you're right. I don't want to blame DJB, because he's a brilliant
programmer. BTW I don't think this is a *perfect* solution. He made just
the *best* solution.
I just want to extend this to a *better* solution. Without the need of
writing patches but with the help of Dan.
He wrote qmail to be usable by almost everybody who knows his/her machine
well and not for the ones who just pick up a package and install it without
a base knowledge what s/he is doing. If you like inetd, use inetd. If you
like xinetd, just use it. It's not the developer's choice but the
administrator's. I (as a coder) don't want to be your sysadm. Be your own
sysadmin.
As you see, I merely want to respect my users' claims and want to keep the
software as flexible as (possible || it was). [sorry for the precedence]
PS I use ucspi-tcp and daemontools. My fellow sysadmins don't want to
use them and they use procmail instead of Maildir, anyways.
--
Regards: Kevin (Balazs)
