Petr Novotny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 15 Sep 99, at 11:09, Magnus Bodin wrote:
> > > have you seen
> > > http://www.securityportal.com/direct.cgi?/closet/closet19990915.html
> > >
> > > Anyone cares to comment?
> >
> > * qmail is not painful to configure and maintain.
>
> Depends. I have had no problems (my first qmail installation was
> up and running in 10 minutes), but the amount of questions in this
> conference (and replies "Go read Life with qmail") suggests
> otherwise.
This does not infer that qmail is "painful to configure and maintain". It
does however require a certain degree of competence to use qmail, as does
the adminisatration of any MTA, and, as the architecture is significantly
different than sendmail it is inevitable that questions will arise. The
fact that many questions can be answered with either RTFM or "Go read Life
with qmail" suggests that people are running into the same issues rather
than finding qmail "painful".
>
> > * the qmail license may be unclear in some points, but I can't see why
> > Kurt
> > is quoting the clearest part of the "license".
> >
> > DJB:s main point is that you can't distribute binary qmail
distributions
> > or modified source distributions and still claim that it's qmail.
>
> But some important parts are really missing. What's the licence for
> daemontools? For rblsmtpd? For qmail-analog? Am I allowed to
> start my syslogd or rc5des client under supervise if I haven't
> installed qmail?
These aren't anything to do with qmail. They're all seperate programs by
the author of qmail. They have seperate (and different) licensing.
R.
