Hi, packages are available through
http://smarden.org/pape/Debian/sid.html
Regards, Gerrit.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:36:54 +0100, Andreas Metzler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not think that is really necessary. I doubt there are lots of new
qmail installations nowadays by people that are not aready well versed
in its configuration.
Newbies ask which MTA to use, are lured in by qmail
On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 04:09:13PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:36:54 +0100, Andreas Metzler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not think that is really necessary. I doubt there are lots of new
qmail installations nowadays by people that are not aready well versed
in its
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Monday December 24 2007 12:34:07 Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Dec 24, Turbo Fredriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I have Postfix crash more often on my home machine (~ 10
mails / 24h - using an smarthost) than Qmail do on my main
mailservers (~ 10k mails / 24h).
Maybe
On lun, 2007-12-24 at 07:29 +0100, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
You should really get your facts straigt before feeding the FUD!
Please don’t scare us like that! I first thought that Jörg Schilling was
back on the list.
Qmail is the most secure MTA out there. It's slick, and quite well
written (a
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 05:54:32PM +, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
I fail to understand this ITP, and all the objections - wether
or not we SHOULD is not the point as I see it. It's a matter
of CAN we.. ?
Well I see points where we have to ask if we _should_ support some
kind of software,
On Tue, Dec 25, 2007 at 05:40:33PM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 05:54:32PM +, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
I fail to understand this ITP, and all the objections - wether
or not we SHOULD is not the point as I see it. It's a matter
of CAN we.. ?
Well I see
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 05:54:32PM +, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
I fail to understand this ITP, and all the objections - wether
or not we SHOULD is not the point as I see it. It's a matter
of CAN we.. ?
Well I see points where we have to ask if we
Turbo Fredriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
reject at SMTP etc (and claims that this makes Qmail wide open for
spams is rubish - it's only if/when configured incorrectly that this
becomes a problem)
How can you configure the QMail to send error messages only to
non-forged sender addresses? I
* Turbo Fredriksson:
(and claims that this makes Qmail wide open for spams is rubish - it's
only if/when configured incorrectly that this becomes a problem)
How can you configure DJB qmail so that it rejects mail for non-existing
local mailboxes at SMTP dialog time?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 07:12:09PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Miros/law Baran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ah, but it's been there, once. I remember that my first Debian
installation included in the default setup all the accounts used by
qmail (if not the qmail itself).
OK, that's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew M.A. Cater) writes:
Smail?? [Debian mail agent pre-exim]. Don't think we've _ever_
distributed qmail, just as we stopped distributing Pine once the licence
restrictions became clear for similar reasons. You are making me think
back to 1996-1997 here :)
qmail-src
Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
in my opinion the new [qmail] license is DFSG-free.
There ain't no new license. DJB simply retracted his copyright. As of
now, anyone can copy the qmail 1.03 code, make modifications at will,
claim copyright for those modifications, and distribute the whole under
any
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 07:29:58AM +0100, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
So, right, the argument we're left with is, it's quick and it doesn't
have many apparent security flaws.
It have NO security flaws (especially not if patching it with the most
obvious patches).
“No security flaws! And even
Hi,
On Mon, 24.12.2007 at 07:29:58 +0100, Turbo Fredriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
- all that send receipt on acceptance/delivery, reject at SMTP etc (and
claims that this makes Qmail wide open for spams is rubish - it's only
if/when configured incorrectly that this becomes a problem)
Hi Florian,
On Mon, 24.12.2007 at 09:41:22 +0100, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Turbo Fredriksson:
(and claims that this makes Qmail wide open for spams is rubish - it's
only if/when configured incorrectly that this becomes a problem)
How can you configure DJB qmail so that
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 12:19:43PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
On Mon, 24.12.2007 at 07:29:58 +0100, Turbo Fredriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
be done by an MTA (it isn't in the SMTP RFC that I know of).
What has this to do with RFCs? I didn't see any particular statement
demanding that
On Dec 24, Turbo Fredriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, come on!! Get a fng reality check! Have you ever even USED
Qmail?! And actually READ it's code!?
Yes to both.
http://www.starbsd.org/misc/why-not-qmail.png
I rest my case.
I have Postfix crash more often on my home machine (~ 10
Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
in my opinion the new [qmail] license is DFSG-free.
There ain't no new license. DJB simply retracted his copyright. As of
now, anyone can copy the qmail 1.03 code, make modifications at will,
claim copyright for those
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Turbo Fredriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
reject at SMTP etc (and claims that this makes Qmail wide open for
spams is rubish - it's only if/when configured incorrectly that this
becomes a problem)
qmail-smtpd in djb's stock distribution with no
Miros/law Baran wrote:
Ah, but it's been there, once. I remember that my first Debian
installation included in the default setup all the accounts used by
qmail (if not the qmail itself).
That's becaused qmail needs/needed hardcoded uids, so we created them.
Later this changed to reserving the
On Monday December 24 2007 12:34:07 Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Dec 24, Turbo Fredriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I have Postfix crash more often on my home machine (~ 10
mails / 24h - using an smarthost) than Qmail do on my main
mailservers (~ 10k mails / 24h).
Maybe the problem is
Quoting Leo \costela\ Antunes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Please note that I don't personally like Qmail either, but I still think
we should (but don't *have* to) provide it, if possible (I don't know
what's the outcome of the putting it in public domain story).
Why was it removed from Debian
Turbo Fredriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why was it removed from Debian GNU/Linux in the first place!?
It's never been in Debian. The source package is in non-free, as the
license didn't permit binary distribution. See e.g.
http://packages.debian.org/etch/qmail-src for some explanation.
--
23.12.2007 pisze Kalle Kivimaa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Turbo Fredriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why was it removed from Debian GNU/Linux in the first place!?
It's never been in Debian. The source package is in non-free, as the
license didn't permit binary distribution. See e.g.
Miros/law Baran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ah, but it's been there, once. I remember that my first Debian
installation included in the default setup all the accounts used by
qmail (if not the qmail itself).
OK, that's possible, I can only remember back to about 2000, when
there was only the
Quoting Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Turbo Fredriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why was it removed from Debian GNU/Linux in the first place!?
It's never been in Debian. The source package is in non-free, as the
license didn't permit binary distribution. See e.g.
Turbo Fredriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So what changed? Did Bernstein change his licence!? And can't
the qmail-src maintainer just upload a binary package?
Yes, the license has been changed, QMail is now fully distributable
and modifiable. Dunno if this ITP should actually be considered an
Hi,
On Fri, 21.12.2007 at 11:14:01 -0800, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is the version that is proposed to be packaged patched to reject mail at
the SMTP level for unknown users rather than accept mail and bounce it
later? qmail in its default operational mode is a spam reflector and
Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
So what changed? Did Bernstein change his licence!?
According to[0], yes.
And can't
the qmail-src maintainer just upload a binary package?
I suppose so, yes.
Opinions are like a butt -
everyone got one (sorry, couldn't remember the English equivalence
of this
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 06:54:32PM +0100, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
Quoting Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Turbo Fredriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why was it removed from Debian GNU/Linux in the first place!?
It's never been in Debian. The source package is in non-free, as the
Quoting Toni Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I suggest packaging qmail-ldap (www.qmail-ldap.org) instead, which
fixes this problem and adds a number of other desirable features as
well (compressed mail transfer, TLS support, cluster support,
you-name-it).
I sent a patch to qmail-src to build both
Hi,
On Sun, 23.12.2007 at 20:17:16 +0100, Turbo Fredriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There are times where qmail-ldap is to much (on hosts where a smart host
is used for example) and there I use the 'simple' qmail package. On mail
servers, I use the qmail-ldap package...
why, just set
This one time, at band camp, Turbo Fredriksson said:
So to be or not to be is irrelevant - the question is: are we
ALLOWED to distribute it or not?
No, actually the question is whether it's worth Debian's time to maintain
it, distribute it, and support it. qmail is one of the few pieces
of
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, actually the question is whether it's worth Debian's time to maintain
it, distribute it, and support it. qmail is one of the few pieces
of software I've ever seen that is so poorly written that it's author
recommends running it under a supervisor
Quoting Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
qmail is one of the few pieces
of software I've ever seen that is so poorly written that it's author
recommends running it under a supervisor because it can't stay running
on it's own.
I wasn't planning on actually replying to this bag of complete
Quoting Toni Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Right. How about integrating ldap-control, too?
The patch I'm talking about have this (quite naturally :).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 11:07:18AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 04:23:52PM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 02:28:28PM +, Gerrit Pape wrote:
qmail is meant as a replacement for the entire sendmail-binmail system
on typical
On Dec 21, Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How widespread is this anyway? I hardly see any new qmail installations
anymore, and the ones I see are largely because it's a pain to migrate away
from.
Just one word: plesk.
And yes, I'd like myself as well to see qmail die the
qmail is meant as a replacement for the entire sendmail-binmail system
on typical Internet-connected UNIX hosts. See BLURB, BLURB2, BLURB3, and
BLURB4 in /usr/share/doc/qmail/ for more detailed advertisements.
See /usr/share/doc/qmail/PIC.* for some ``end-to-end'' pictures of mail
flowing through
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 02:28:28PM +, Gerrit Pape wrote:
qmail is meant as a replacement for the entire sendmail-binmail system
on typical Internet-connected UNIX hosts. See BLURB, BLURB2, BLURB3, and
BLURB4 in /usr/share/doc/qmail/ for more detailed advertisements.
[...]
This is not a
On 11240 March 1977, Guus Sliepen wrote:
qmail is meant as a replacement for the entire sendmail-binmail system
on typical Internet-connected UNIX hosts. See BLURB, BLURB2, BLURB3, and
BLURB4 in /usr/share/doc/qmail/ for more detailed advertisements.
This is not a proper ITP. You only mention
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
There are *way* better MTAs [than qmail] out there that dont need
tons of patches applied just to fulfill basic requirements for a MTA.
No, there are not.
--
John H. Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 08:17:08PM +0100, Leo costela Antunes wrote:
There are certainly many others that don't need patches to fulfill basic
requirements for an MTA, but whether they are better or not is
irrelevant for us, given Qmail's level of widespread adoption.
How widespread is this
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
There are *way* better MTAs [than qmail] out there that dont need
tons of patches applied just to fulfill basic requirements for a MTA.
No, there are not.
There are certainly many others that don't need patches to fulfill basic
requirements
John H. Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
There are *way* better MTAs [than qmail] out there that dont need
tons of patches applied just to fulfill basic requirements for a MTA.
No, there are not.
Is the version that is proposed to be packaged patched to reject
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
How widespread is this anyway? I hardly see any new qmail installations
anymore, and the ones I see are largely because it's a pain to migrate away
from.
Of course, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”...
Well, I have too agree with you that almost all my
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 04:23:52PM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 02:28:28PM +, Gerrit Pape wrote:
qmail is meant as a replacement for the entire sendmail-binmail system
on typical Internet-connected UNIX hosts. See BLURB, BLURB2, BLURB3, and
BLURB4 in
48 matches
Mail list logo
