Re: Replace sendmail with qmail?
Hi, On Fri, 30.11.2007 at 14:03:36 -0600, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does qmail have the ability to block all email concerning replacing sednmail in base? it's not built in (qmail is intended to be lean), but you could give it a shot using eg. netqmail + qmail-scanner. Best, --Toni++
Re: Replace sendmail with qmail?
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 03:34:11PM -0800, Bryan Irvine wrote: On Nov 30, 2007 3:19 PM, Andrew Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wouldn't such reasoning about a gift apply equally to a BSD-license on free-as-in-beer software? Andrew Ruscica wrote: ... Why the Public Domain Isn't a License (Linux Journal) http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 From the article: ... Unfortunately, such gifts are illusory. Under basic contract law, a gift cannot be enforced. The donor can retract his gift at any time, for any reason - scant security for someone intending to make long-term use of a piece of software. No, I think you missed the point of the article. It's trying to say that you retain copyright like a sticky booger. Merely saying 'this stuff is in public domain now' is not enough to make it so. Strangely, it appears that you have no right put something in the public domain, it just happens 70 years after you die. (Copyright lawyers feel free to chime in here) This is not strange. Something gets into public domain if the author died 70 years ago. Now people are saying: I want to put something in public domain. This is just nonsense. You could say: do whatever you like with this but you still have to die and wait for 70 years before it is in public domain. People are saying some software is in public domain but this is not the way 'public domain' is used origionally. Some people are just making another defenition of it. -B What does this mean? I see those kind of 'options' more often. Pieter Verberne
Re: Replace sendmail with qmail?
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 12:27:32AM -0800, Matthew Dempsky wrote: Is there any interest in replacing sendmail with it to remove another component from the src/gnu/ hierarchy? I strongly recommend against this. There's no need for it, and anyone who insists on running qmail (a course of action that I strongly recommend against) should be capable of building/installing it as they wish. Moreover, it's not clear to me (probably because I'm not a copyright/patent/trademark/etc. attorney) that the recent qmail licensing announcement actually has the legal meaning that is being assigned to it. ---Rsk
Re: Replace sendmail with qmail?
On 30/11/2007, Bryan Irvine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Strangely, it appears that you have no right put something in the public domain, it just happens 70 years after you die. (Copyright lawyers feel free to chime in here) Says who? Strangely, this is not how it works. Any copyright owner can release their work into the public domain. http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html While material that is truly entered into the Public Domain can be included in OpenBSD, review is required on a case by case basis. Frequently the public domain assertion is made by someone who does not really hold all rights under Copyright law to grant that status or there are a variety of conditions imposed on use. For a work to be truly in the Public Domain all rights are abandoned and the material is offered without restrictions. http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html I've seen a few people claiming, without justification, that a clear written dedication of the work to the public domain doesn't actually abandon copyright. Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever wasted a judge's time trying to make this silly argument in court. Cheers, Constantine.
Re: Replace sendmail with qmail?
Does qmail have the ability to block all email concerning replacing sednmail in base? On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 12:27:32AM -0800, Matthew Dempsky wrote: Dan Bernstein has placed qmail 1.03 into the public domain (see http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html). Is there any interest in replacing sendmail with it to remove another component from the src/gnu/ hierarchy?
Re: Replace sendmail with qmail?
Wouldn't such reasoning about a gift apply equally to a BSD-license on free-as-in-beer software? Andrew Ruscica wrote: ... Why the Public Domain Isn't a License (Linux Journal) http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 From the article: ... Unfortunately, such gifts are illusory. Under basic contract law, a gift cannot be enforced. The donor can retract his gift at any time, for any reason - scant security for someone intending to make long-term use of a piece of software.
Re: Replace sendmail with qmail?
No, I think you missed the point of the article. It's trying to say that you retain copyright like a sticky booger. Merely saying 'this stuff is in public domain now' is not enough to make it so. Strangely, it appears that you have no right put something in the public domain, it just happens 70 years after you die. (Copyright lawyers feel free to chime in here) Unfortunately for fans of djb, I think this means the license issue is still hanging tough. -B On Nov 30, 2007 3:19 PM, Andrew Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wouldn't such reasoning about a gift apply equally to a BSD-license on free-as-in-beer software? Andrew Ruscica wrote: ... Why the Public Domain Isn't a License (Linux Journal) http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 From the article: ... Unfortunately, such gifts are illusory. Under basic contract law, a gift cannot be enforced. The donor can retract his gift at any time, for any reason - scant security for someone intending to make long-term use of a piece of software.
Re: Replace sendmail with qmail?
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 01:45:02PM -0500, Andrew Ruscica wrote: On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 12:27:32AM -0800, Matthew Dempsky wrote: Dan Bernstein has placed qmail 1.03 into the public domain (see http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html). Might be worthwhile reading this (from a US legal perspective at least): Why the Public Domain Isn't a License (Linux Journal) http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 From the article: ...there is nothing that permits the dumping of copyrighted works into the public domain, except as happens in due course when any applicable copyrights expire. Until those copyrights expire, no mechanism is in the law by which an owner of software can simply elect to place it in the public domain. This is exactly what I mean in my mail.
Re: Replace sendmail with qmail?
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 12:27:32AM -0800, Matthew Dempsky wrote: Dan Bernstein has placed qmail 1.03 into the public domain (see http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html). Might be worthwhile reading this (from a US legal perspective at least): Why the Public Domain Isn't a License (Linux Journal) http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 From the article: ...there is nothing that permits the dumping of copyrighted works into the public domain, except as happens in due course when any applicable copyrights expire. Until those copyrights expire, no mechanism is in the law by which an owner of software can simply elect to place it in the public domain. and Unfortunately, such gifts are illusory. Under basic contract law, a gift cannot be enforced. The donor can retract his gift at any time, for any reason - scant security for someone intending to make long-term use of a piece of software.
Re: Replace sendmail with qmail?
On Friday 30 November 2007 10:50:09 Gregory Edigarov wrote: Pete Vickers wrote: In case it's needed (which I doubt), I'll voice my VERY strongly preference for sendmail instead of all these other pretenders. I agree. Please do not remove sendmail. it is the most advanced opensourced mailer, I do strongly prefer it. I don't think anyone needs to worry about sendmail leaving. --STeve Andre'
Re: Replace sendmail with qmail?
Matthew Dempsky schrieb: Is there any interest in replacing sendmail with it to remove another component from the src/gnu/ hierarchy? No. In ports yes, in base no. I don't see any advantage switching from sendmail to qmail. ...and yes, i know qmail. It was the first mailserver i get in touch with and used it for several years. But after qmail and (later) postfix, i'm nowadays using sendmail as prefered server. -- Ralph
Re: Replace sendmail with qmail?
In case it's needed (which I doubt), I'll voice my VERY strongly preference for sendmail instead of all these other pretenders. /Pete On 30 Nov 2007, at 10:25 AM, Matthew Dempsky wrote: On 11/30/07, Peter Hessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That being said, its really easy to install qmail yourself and have it replace the in-tree sendmail (see mailer.conf). Right, and maybe for a future OpenBSD release you could swap the placement of sendmail and qmail in that sentence. :-) To be clear, I suggested replacing sendmail with qmail because 1) it would further OpenBSD's efforts of eliminating unacceptably licensed code and 2) I'm familiar with qmail, so I can actually contribute patches. If there's a more suitable MTA, I'd be even happier to see it go in (as long as I can keep using qmail ;-).
Re: Replace sendmail with qmail?
Pete Vickers wrote: In case it's needed (which I doubt), I'll voice my VERY strongly preference for sendmail instead of all these other pretenders. I agree. Please do not remove sendmail. it is the most advanced opensourced mailer, I do strongly prefer it. -- With best regards, Gregory Edigarov
Re: Replace sendmail with qmail?
Frans Haarman wrote: Did he change his djbdns license as well !? From the Google Video (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Bernstein+releases+code+public+domain)... After talking about shortcomings of BSD/GNU licensing... ... as a result of seeing this mess for some decades and thinking about the sources of the mess I have decided to put my future and (going through the things I've done i the past) past software into the public domain. ... and some guy next to him, raises his hands, and quietly exclaims, Yes!, before the small crowd of SAGE attendees breaks into applause. If it isn't already changed, it may be soon. -ez
Re: Replace sendmail with qmail?
On Nov 30, 2007 9:27 AM, Matthew Dempsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan Bernstein has placed qmail 1.03 into the public domain (see http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html). Is there any interest in replacing sendmail with it to remove another component from the src/gnu/ hierarchy? This would be very cool. I am totally in love with qmail, it hasnt failed me yet. Did he change his djbdns license as well !?
Re: Replace sendmail with qmail?
On 11/30/07, Peter Hessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That being said, its really easy to install qmail yourself and have it replace the in-tree sendmail (see mailer.conf). Right, and maybe for a future OpenBSD release you could swap the placement of sendmail and qmail in that sentence. :-) To be clear, I suggested replacing sendmail with qmail because 1) it would further OpenBSD's efforts of eliminating unacceptably licensed code and 2) I'm familiar with qmail, so I can actually contribute patches. If there's a more suitable MTA, I'd be even happier to see it go in (as long as I can keep using qmail ;-).
Re: Replace sendmail with qmail?
qmail has a seperate set of problems beyond its license. That being said, its really easy to install qmail yourself and have it replace the in-tree sendmail (see mailer.conf). On 2007 Nov 30 (Fri) at 00:27:32 -0800 (-0800), Matthew Dempsky wrote: :Dan Bernstein has placed qmail 1.03 into the public domain (see :http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html). Is there any interest in replacing :sendmail with it to remove another component from the src/gnu/ :hierarchy? : -- You must realize that the computer has it in for you. The irrefutable proof of this is that the computer always does what you tell it to do.
Re: Replace sendmail with qmail?
hmm, on Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 12:27:32AM -0800, Matthew Dempsky said that Dan Bernstein has placed qmail 1.03 into the public domain (see http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html). Is there any interest in replacing sendmail with it to remove another component from the src/gnu/ hierarchy? everyone seems to think about s/sendmail/qmail/g but there is another quite obvious possibility: simply adding it besides sendmail... that would of course be almost totally the same as having it in the ports. but interesting times, interesting times definitely, qmail becoming PD. 2 roadblocks are gone: qmail's code quality is on par with openbsd's, the license is now sweet, so only the third remains: it's weirdness. people who like the unix way of life will note that DNB likes to ignore hier(7) and some other peculiarities. but now that the source is PD, those are not a real problems anymore... if i had to guess, i'd say it won't get in (use it from the ports) and somehow i just can't imagine a /. article called qmail now openbsd's default mta :] -f ps. a) i am a postfix person b) i am not a fan of openbsd's built-in programs. i think sendmail should be in ports too, just as IE should not be part of windows. -f -- everyone has a photographic memory, some don't have film.
