Actually, I have to agree that the wording that "qmail 1.03 no longer
supports inetd" seems to mean that qmail 1.03 doesn't work with inetd. But
the web site (at least as of this moment) has perfectly clear wording:
Inetd is no longer recommended for use with qmail 1.03. Use tcpserver
instead.
BTW, I agree with Eric about being unnecessarily insulting.
Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/
Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any.
PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Eric Rahmig writes:
> > Russell Nelson writes:
> > >Lyndon Griffin writes:
> > > > thanks everyone for the quick response... now, my next question - does it
> > > > not seem a little extreme to say that simply
> > > > "qmail 1.03 no longer supports inetd."
> > > > and then link to the ucspi-tcp package, which you kinda have to figure out
> > > > for yourself that that's what the link is trying to tell you, when it is, as
> > > > you all say, quite possible that qmail-smptd WILL run under inetd (maybe OS
> > > > dependent)?
> > >
> > >Maybe we just have too high an opinion of your intelligence?
> >
> > Come on, is this kind of comment really necessary? Good grief.
>
> Obviously, it is necessary. By linking to ucspi-tcp and telling
> people that inetd is no longer supported, that should be taken as a
> clue for what to do next. Since this is obviously not obvious, I need
> to point out why I consider that such a link is an indication of the
> high esteem in which I hold qmail users.
>
> Is everything clear now?
>
> --
> -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
> Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
> 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
> Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
>
