-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 23 May 1999, John R. Levine wrote:
> >Actually, I was just asking why couldn't qmail supress dupes on local
> >addresses.
> The real reason is because it's the wrong tool.
Right. This is the answer that I believe the most. I'm still straining
to try to think how to end spam. Email is/was based on total openness,
but it seems like in the future, it will migrate to be 100% the opposite
- -- that is, I feel that email will be 100% closed unless otherwise
configured.
Personally, I like the maildrop patches/hacks into the MTA(smtp?) code.
I'm not sure how this scales, but but me, personally, it seems like it
has a lot of potential.
I like qmail in the fact that it is modular. I do not like it in the
fact that anything that it doesn't do is handled either by hard to find
patches and then unsupported (because it's no longer qmail) or by some
use of a pipe or .file somewhere. The statement before about the 20% of
sendwhale vs the 80% of qmail is true. The qmail list seems to stress
that those who are not willing to learn the 80% of qmail are not really
in the position to be installing qmail in the first place. True or not,
it doesn't really matter.
Scott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBN0ijPx4PLs9vCOqdAQExKAP+KqdpujCVunWTwZn/d0vGq3d6/ucTctTF
RXoXcpnGSBhD986PkuACUrLEOeqNr7HJ9ys1U+goNFRd5UrU9RPeDCiNdlKwvb+f
pJ/Mb9mRiC+aKKT74S/4ol3F3pKXRw5wyrLQw0raE3LgpyhMG4qXsq6b831L748o
LmvwZHkX0FU=
=VNSF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
