> Secondly, ADSL service guarantees are generally along the lines of 'if > it goes down, we'll get someone out to check it within 24 hours, and > we'll see if we can fix it'.
that's an inherent weakness simply of using dynamic addresses to host an MTA, you do realize? with a reasonably well crafted timing attack, one could present themselves as the IP the mail is to go to, and grab it all.
> >We run a qmail mirror and traffic is declining. > > that could be due to any number of factors,
It could. But the number of qmail mirrors is not increasing fast enough to compensate.
that again is not evidence that qmail usage is growing or declining. there are mirrors all over the world. there is not necessarily any need for more mirrors. if a new mirror comes online with ten times the available bandwidth of five other mirrors in the same region, and those five mirrors then go away because they are not needed, does that mean qmail is less popular? i hope you see the folly in that line of logic.
> comparisons are not a measure of whether the usage of an MTA is growing > or declining.
True. But going by my increasingly pointy-haired boss, who evaluates technology first on how strongly it is recommended, and secondly on aesthetics, I consider this to be cause rather than effect. Many bosses look at the recommendations first and do not have the technical ability to evaluate ther technical merits (my PHB is a techy, but rarely uses his technical skills to over-ride his "our customers will love this pile of manure" judgements).
but again, that is not evidence that qmail usage is growing or declining.
> > I know a couple > >of ways of identifying qmail even when the greetings message has been > >changed and patches have removed other obvious identifications and by > >my reckoning Hotmail no longer uses qmail (but probably still doesn't > >use Exchange). > > so you have no proof, correct?
Ummm, can you offer me proof that hotmail IS using qmail still? Every test I have done indicates it is not, although the qmail mirrors say it is.
i didn't suggest i had proof. you've offered the speculation that hotmail is no longer using qmail. to support that, you've supplied no empirical, verifiable, or repeatable evidence to back up the claim. you have a hunch - and you may very well be right - but it is not proof of your claim.
> you've expressed an opinion that you believe qmail is not growing in > usage. that's fine, and is your privilege. it is not a fact, however.
And do you have ANY proof that *relative* qmail usage is on the increase?
i haven't made a claim either that it's increasing or decreasing. you've made a claim that it is decreasing, but you've offered no evidence to back up the claim. that's all i'm pointing out.
It is quite probable that qmail usage is increasing, but not as fast as other MTAs.
or it may be the other way around. with out proof, who knows?
You have attempted (and failoed) to invalidate the evidence
you've offered *NO* evidence.
I have avaliabe to me but not provided any of your own to back up your position. I can be convinced - give me verifiable evidence and logical reasoning and I will happily admit I was wrong.
you've offered speculation, not evidence. none. this is the empirical method at work. provide evidence to back up your claims. *i've not claimed a position*. *you have*. but you've offered no evidence. only speculation.
again, speculation is fine. so long as it is presented as same. claiming that you have proof or evidence without providing any is not helpful.
Paul Theodoropoulos http://www.anastrophe.com
