Re: Qmail for NT again
On Thu, Feb 18, 1999 at 06:37:51PM -0800, Racer X wrote: That said, there are some places where Linux comes up short as compared to NT. I don't want to get into a holy war over this so if you disagree with the preceeding statement mail me privately, Of course you don't want to start a holy war. That's why you made a statement like that. but I can think of some good reasons to run qmail on NT, and I'm of the opinion that any architecture changes can be done with a minimum of fuss and quite possible modularized in some fashion to make it easier to keep source trees in sync. I for one think this is terrific. When you're done, I'm sure there will be people interested. Good luck. -- John White [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
Qmail for NT again
Sorry for not jumping in earlier, I was out of town. Anyway, I'm very interested in the idea of running qmail on NT. A couple of people have pointed out that there are some places where NT comes up short as compared to (for instance) Linux, and also that some real reworking of qmail might be necessary to get it to run on NT. That said, there are some places where Linux comes up short as compared to NT. I don't want to get into a holy war over this so if you disagree with the preceeding statement mail me privately, but I can think of some good reasons to run qmail on NT, and I'm of the opinion that any architecture changes can be done with a minimum of fuss and quite possible modularized in some fashion to make it easier to keep source trees in sync. There is a lack of a good, stable, highly configurable, fast, and free MTA for NT. There's a number of things out there for NT that fit a couple of these, but nothing like qmail. NT may have its quirks, but it offers a lot of the features and services of high-end Unix systems while running on commodity hardware. I've been sort of toying with the idea of a port to NT, but I wanted to see if there was any interest or work being done on this yet. So if anyone can give me any info on any current development efforts, I'd like to know about it. Failing that, I'd love to hear from you if you're interested in helping out with my own effort. shag = Judd Bourgeois| CNM Network +1 (805) 520-7170 Software Architect| 1900 Los Angeles Avenue, 2nd Floor [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Simi Valley, CA 93065 To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Re: Qmail for NT
djcroark writes: are there any plans to port Qmail to windows NT??? None. Windows NT handles forking very badly, and qmail needs forking to be cheap. Why not replace NT with a free operating system? I always recommend that people have a separate machine as their email hub anyway, with no user accounts. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
Re: Qmail for NT
- Stefan Paletta [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | I used cygwin32, which emulates a Unix environment quite well. | Surprisingly, the file I had to tweak most, was the Makefile (but since | cygwin32 includes sed...). The rest compiled quite well without any | changes to the C code, IIRC. This was all I could test. qmail needs inode numbers to generate unique message numbers. Does NT have something equivalent to inode numbers? If not, how do you generate unique message numbers? I am not saying it can't be done, only that it may be nontrivial. (Hmm, have a separate server process hand them out on demand?) - Harald
Re: Qmail for NT
Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote/schrieb/scribsit: Does NT have something equivalent to inode numbers? I don't know for sure (FATfs at least hasn't). The question is rather, does cygwin have inode numbers? I just tried (on 95) and "ls -i" reports something reasonable. Stefan
