>
> On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 08:36:43AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> > I agree with you in general, Russ. The only benefit I can see to
> > comp.mail.qmail is that there is also a comp.mail.sendmail.
>
> The impression I gain is that reception amidst vocal
> qmail advocates is at best lukewarm. How many replied ?
> 4 or 5 on a list containing upwards of 800 list members.
Though I didn't comment, especially as I am not yet seasoned,
I want to state that I am in favor of comp.mail.qmail. I
intended my silence to be interpreted as implicit agreement
with the idea of forming the group; as it seemed that the RFD
would likely be presented to the news.groups, I didn't see
where my words would be particularly necessary.
Now, can I justify my position of wanting the newsgroup?
The primary arguments I found against the formation of
comp.mail.qmail are 1) The current situation is fine;
2) a newsgroup would take traffic away from the mailing
list 3) Usenet is Useless! (i.e. it used to be better than
mailing lists, now its not).
I don't personally see 1) as a real argument against the formation
of the newsgroup, unless it's coupled with 2). Yes, the current
situation is good, but it could be better.
2) is a slightly strange one. I'd actually like traffic on the
qmail list to go down, or more, stay where it is. Mailing lists
are good for small, relatively closed communities; ones that I
subscribe to include the excellent libwww-perl which is mainly
trafficked by the module owners, plus some newbie-q traffic.
Higher volume lists like the WWWAC list and Perl-Win-32-Web are
a pretty big mess.
3) Usenet needs updating. I've got some ideas on that, and anyone
who is interested in some bold ideas for shaking up the newsgroups
should drop me a line. However, I still think it's better than
mailing lists for a number of reasons, the first being threading.
Also, when traffic gets high, then newsgroups are clearly are
more rational option, as fewer copies of the messages are sent out.
Etc. etc.
These rejoinders offer some reasons for a newsgroup, but I want to
add that in my opinion, qmail is at the stage where a newsgroup is
appropriate. It's well-documented and tested, and I do expect it
to supplant sendmail over time. A newsgroup not only allows the
qmail community to grow gracefully, but it also serves as an excellent
advertisement for qmail. ("sendmail has its own newsgroup, but qmail
doesn't. Hmm, guess qmail isn't really ready/well supported/well
advocated.")
I hope there are some points here that seem to make sense.
> I don't accept the "there's a comp.mail.sendmail so
> yeh, there should be a comp.mail.qmail" argument, as I
> think it is plainly flawed, and will be shot to death
> on news.groups.
>
> This 'thread' started in 1998, when I asked some simple
> advocacy questions viz. who is using qmail ? ISPs etc.
> I note that the www.qmail.org webmaster, later amended
> some of the replies, and put them on the web page. Good. This
> kind of information gives people useful insight.
>
> I originally suggested firmly I would post the RFD formally
> this week, or thereabouts. I'll re-phrase that as, I'll
> "try again here in 15 months' time, to see if there is interest".
> That's being prudent about things and qmail is a prudent MTA.
>
> Meantime, some of you may be interested in the alt.*
> newsgroup alt.comp.mail.qmail (newgrouped 27 Feb 2000).
> If your ISP does not carry this group, and you'd like
> access to it, one usually writes to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> or your usual support contact asking "please add ..."
>
> I would also suggest a <a href="news:... link on the website.
>
> Thank you to those who commented publically and privately,
> and corrected my typos. Feel free to ignore any more above !
>
> Darren
>
> - --
> this is my .sig, show me yours
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.3i
> Charset: noconv
>
> iQCVAwUBOT2zPTz2ljeBLFSxAQH+xQQApOLTGGXXU3N3EbDyotRuj4usKvihzSZ6
> ZJFcAZQc+odVG4catq5kvARZXkS7eHhjQB6qKrEIzV67v2fmndxH3T1EAMp8uCHx
> F/hYXJSdYTXCUVVLdkrVn2neecWRptWGvcmw7ZyRmuUZQkFGcqrpoDyqkPZ1eZIn
> P/1plB8wGvA=
> =IEuM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
