[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Please forgive my naivete as I am new to qmail and this list, but hearing a
> statement such as yours, Peter, gives me pause to consider: If there may
> not be future development, am I betting on a dead (or dying) horse?
No, it's not dead or dying. Indeed, qmail is growing. The author, however,
from various statements he has made, is unlikely to do much in the way of
development on the 1.x version. He has plans for a version 2 which will
be significantly different/better.
> What is wrong with some of the requests that have been asked for? Granted,
> some of the functionality is available as a patch, but should not some of
> those patches be incorporated into the main code base if doing so would
> make qmail easier to setup, configure, and run without the new qmail
> administrator having to download and install a series of patches that
> affect the core functionality of qmail?
No. Nothing goes into qmail until the author is satisfied of various
issues, including:
-security
-reliability
-correctness
-proper design -- i.e. is there a better/more modular way to do it
Much of the common patches that are around fail in one of the tests above,
at least when using the author's stringent tests. There's nothing wrong
with this; he keeps qmail secure, reliable, efficient, and "correct",
and anyone who wants to applies patches as they see fit.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
