-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 18:20:41 -0300
Source: qmail-run
Architecture: source
Version: 2.0.3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian QA Group
Changed-By: Marcelo Vinicius Campos Amedi
Changes:
qmail-run (2.0.3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 23:52:51 +0100
Source: qmail-run
Binary: qmail-run
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.0.2+nmu1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Gerrit Pape p...@smarden.org
Changed-By: Andreas Beckmann
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:37:00 +0100
Source: qmail
Binary: qmail-src
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.03-49.3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Jon Marler jmar...@debian.org
Changed-By: Christian Perrier bubu
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011, Mark Hymers wrote:
On Tue, 29, Mar, 2011 at 08:14:21AM -0700, Don Armstrong spoke thus..
What is the current status of this?
I've just checked the packages, and given the constraints of #510415, I
have accepted netqmail, dot-forward, fastforward, qmail-run and
qmail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:25:27 +
Source: qmail-run
Binary: qmail-run
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.0.2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Gerrit Pape p...@smarden.org
Changed-By: Gerrit Pape p...@smarden.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:00:41 +
Source: qmail-tools
Binary: qmail-tools
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.1.0
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Gerrit Pape p...@smarden.org
Changed-By: Gerrit Pape p...@smarden.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 22:24:00 +0200
Source: qmail
Binary: qmail-src
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.03-49.2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Jon Marler jmar...@debian.org
Changed-By: Christian Perrier bubu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2010 10:31:07 -0400
Source: qmail
Binary: qmail-src
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.03-49
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Jon Marler jmar...@debian.org
Changed-By: Jon Marler jmar...@debian.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:54:30 -0500
Source: qmail
Binary: qmail-src
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.03-48
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Jon Marler jmar...@debian.org
Changed-By: Jon Marler jmar...@debian.org
to force the
spammer to slow down, thank you very much. I even endorse greylisting
(with a whitelist) nowadays, but you'll never see me endorsing QMail
until it is patched.
Concerning the delayed delivery notifications, there's an efficient way
to immediately reject those in the SMTP connection, see
This one time, at band camp, Gerrit Pape said:
Finally, just as not supporting VRFY, not rejecting in the SMTP
conversation makes it harder for the spammers to sort out bad recipient
addresses, and so to use their resources even more efficiently.
That is so stunningly wrong an argument I can't
in the SMTP connection, they're trivial to enable. I
personally use mailfront instead of qmail-smtpd. mailfront, already
available in Debian/main, has this functionality and can also act
perfectly as a replacement.
If it doesn't, then IMO, at this day and age, a MTA sending
backscatter spam doesn't
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 11:29:13AM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Gerrit Pape [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi, I'm quite surprised how the inclusion of qmail and related packages
into sid is handled, or rather not handled, by the ftpmasters.
I downloaded the netqmail source from http
Gerrit Pape [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've yet to be pointed to a grave or serious bug in the packages pending
in NEW, otherwise I see no reason why they shouldn't be processed and
pass NEW. I completely agree with this well written post
Does the package in NEW fix the well known backscatter
* Gerrit Pape:
Right now, upstream doesn't completely agree with Andree's list of
bugs.
Out of curiosity, does netqmail fix at least the delayed bounce
problem?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
not restricted to qmail (Bernstein's DNS code suffers
from that to a higher degree, and it's in the archive).
Well, do you think the size of ipv4 addresses ever will change? :)
Ask the poor guys who wrote IPv6 patches for djbdns.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
Moritz Muehlenhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't
have a problem with qmail being included in Lenny.
You are aware of upstream's attitude towards security holes? There are
lots of assumptions like nobody will ever do
E.g
Gerrit Pape [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi, I'm quite surprised how the inclusion of qmail and related packages
into sid is handled, or rather not handled, by the ftpmasters.
I downloaded the netqmail source from http://dbn.smarden.org/sid/ and
looked briefly at it, to see if most of the well
Bjørn Mork [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Moritz Muehlenhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't
have a problem with qmail being included in Lenny.
You are aware of upstream's attitude towards security holes? There are
lots
Hi Moritz,
Neil Williams wrote:
It isn't just about choosing not to install it, it causes work for the
various teams in Debian - security, release, QA.
We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't
have a problem with qmail being included in Lenny.
Cheers
this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't
have a problem with qmail being included in Lenny.
Cheers,
Moritz
Thanks, Moritz! That's great news from the Security Team.
So, the Security Team has no problem supporting qmail. Does anyone
from the Release Team or the QA Teams have
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Aside from these technical - and possibly fixable - problems, we
(as in the ftpteam) have discussed the issue, and we are all of
the opinion that qmail should die, and not receive support from
Debian. As such we *STRONGLY* ask you
this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't
have a problem with qmail being included in Lenny.
Cheers,
Moritz
Thanks, Moritz! That's great news from the Security Team.
So, the Security Team has no problem supporting qmail. Does anyone
from the Release Team or the QA Teams have any
* Joerg Jaspert:
On 11583 March 1977, Gerrit Pape wrote:
As i got asked for the complete text of the rejection mail, as the
thread start only had a partial quote, here it is.
Thanks!
First - the packaging is nowhere near the standard Debian aspires to in the
archive:
Qmail is an MTA
* David Kaufman:
The Security Team has responded that it has no objections to adding
qmail to Lenny.
Just to clarify, there are no objections with regard to security
support. This does NOT mean that we want to see qmail in the archive
while there are other open issues (as outlined
David Kaufman wrote:
Hi Moritz,
Neil Williams wrote:
It isn't just about choosing not to install it, it causes work for the
various teams in Debian - security, release, QA.
We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't
have a problem with qmail being included
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 03:33:43PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Joerg Jaspert:
First - the packaging is nowhere near the standard Debian aspires to in the
archive:
Qmail is an MTA and as such should follow Debian Policy (for example Section
11.6). It's therefore not a very good start
, I took the advise from
ftpmasters and reconsidered re-uploading the packages. After two
months, and receiving several mails from users asking about the progress
of the inclusion into Debian main after qmail was placed into the public
domain, I re-read some public mails like
http://bugs.debian.org
* Gerrit Pape:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 03:33:43PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Joerg Jaspert:
First - the packaging is nowhere near the standard Debian aspires to in the
archive:
Qmail is an MTA and as such should follow Debian Policy (for example
Section
11.6). It's therefore
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Personally, I'm more concerned about manual constant propagation in
some parts of the code base (like using the integer literal 4 for the
size of an IPv4 address), and similar coding style issues. But this
is certainly not restricted to qmail
On Nov 30, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Qmail is dead upstream and requires a whole set of patches to even begin to
work in the manner expected of a modern MTA. Given this, the fact that this
means there is also no upstream security support, and the fact that Debian
already
having an official well-maintained package (and the one you
Md evalued clearly is not) is the least evil.
[speaking as Plesk ex-developer] It won't help, Plesk's qmail is patched
in various ways, including Plesk-specific patches, so version provided
by Debian won't help.
--
pgpe4tUun6pCk.pgp
Neil Williams wrote:
It isn't just about choosing not to install it, it causes work for the
various teams in Debian - security, release, QA.=20
We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't
have a problem with qmail being included in Lenny.
Cheers,
Moritz
Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED] (29/11/2008):
Or
mentors.debian.net ?
Source-only.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Miriam Ruiz dijo [Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 02:37:16AM +0100]:
DDs would be discouraged from participating since they should be
supporting packages/etc within Debian instead.
I'm not exactly sure about this. I have quite a lot of packages that I
made for my own usage but I don't have time or
William Pitcock dijo [Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 06:57:37PM -0600]:
(...)
What I propose is something more along the lines of Gentoo's sunrise
overlay... a repository that anyone can get upload access to provided
that they understand basic Debian policy and have established that they
will be
Raphael Geissert dijo [Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:05:23PM -0600]:
William Pitcock wrote:
[...]
The ideal way to handle this would be to have a single repository. PPAs
solve a different problem, which is giving contributors and developers a
playground to publish their in-progress packages.
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
For completeness sake: QA does not thow out orphanes packages just for
being orphaned. If they are orphaned, RC-buggy, hardly used, and
alternatives are available, only then they are candidates for removal.
You missed Debconf8's BoF I guess.
Bast regards,
Bas.
-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED
To: Gerrit Pape [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Debian Installer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:19:30 +0200
Hi Maintainer,
rejected, for various reasons (this mail applies to all of the various
qmail and qmail related packages currently in NEW, namely
netqmail, qmail-run, qmail
Am 2008-11-28 15:42:34, schrieb William Pitcock:
I think issues like these call for an unsupported repository outside of
Debian, but publicized within the community as an unofficial repository
for things like qmail, packages unwanted in Debian proper for the time
being, etc.
http
Hi, I'm quite surprised how the inclusion of qmail and related packages
into sid is handled, or rather not handled, by the ftpmasters.
Within a time-frame of six months I received exactly one rejection mail in
response to two uploads of the packages, a reply to the rejection mail,
and three mails
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:12:42 +
Gerrit Pape [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, I'm quite surprised how the inclusion of qmail and related
packages into sid is handled, or rather not handled, by the
ftpmasters.
Just because a package is free software does not mean it automatically
qualifies
Hi,
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 20:51 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
Can you advise me on how to get out of that dilemma?
Stop trying to get qmail into Debian?
or
Take on upstream development of qmail and solve all the problems
(whether qmail will then be recognisable compared to the existing
Hi,
On Friday 28 November 2008 22:42, William Pitcock wrote:
I think issues like these call for an unsupported repository outside of
Debian, but publicized within the community as an unofficial repository
for things like qmail, packages unwanted in Debian proper for the time
being, etc
Hi,
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 23:57 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Friday 28 November 2008 22:42, William Pitcock wrote:
I think issues like these call for an unsupported repository outside of
Debian, but publicized within the community as an unofficial repository
for things like qmail
Hi,
On Saturday 29 November 2008 01:57, William Pitcock wrote:
What I propose is something more along the lines of Gentoo's sunrise
overlay... a repository that anyone can get upload access to provided
that they understand basic Debian policy and have established that they
will be
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 6:42 AM, William Pitcock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think issues like these call for an unsupported repository outside of
Debian, but publicized within the community as an unofficial repository
for things like qmail, packages unwanted in Debian proper for the time
2008/11/29 Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
DDs would be discouraged from participating since they should be
supporting packages/etc within Debian instead.
I'm not exactly sure about this. I have quite a lot of packages that I
made for my own usage but I don't have time or interest in maintaining
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:28:58 +0900 Paul Wise wrote:
Infrastructure should be similarly supported and hosted by mainly
non-DDs; buildds, porting machines and so on.
Actually I was thinking about something similar yesterday.
Asa non-DD it is very hard to reproduce bugs from arches you don't own,
Hi,
On Sat, 2008-11-29 at 02:19 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Saturday 29 November 2008 01:57, William Pitcock wrote:
What I propose is something more along the lines of Gentoo's sunrise
overlay... a repository that anyone can get upload access to provided
that they understand
Le Friday 28 November 2008 23:57:09 Holger Levsen, vous avez écrit :
On Friday 28 November 2008 22:42, William Pitcock wrote:
I think issues like these call for an unsupported repository outside of
Debian, but publicized within the community as an unofficial repository
for things like qmail
William Pitcock wrote:
[...]
The ideal way to handle this would be to have a single repository. PPAs
solve a different problem, which is giving contributors and developers a
playground to publish their in-progress packages. This is more about
getting packages to users in an efficient way,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 13:58:36 -0400
Source: qmail
Binary: qmail-src
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.03-47
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:26:55 -0400
Source: qmail
Binary: qmail-src
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.03-46
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED
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]
Hello,
there are djbdns-installer, daemontools-installer, ucspi-tcp-src, qmail-src
package,
but for now is not necesary to have this -installer packages.
Licence for this software changed http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html;
Packages are in public domain, including distributing modified versions
Jan Mojzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
there are djbdns-installer, daemontools-installer, ucspi-tcp-src,
qmail-src package, but for now is not necesary to have this
-installer packages. Licence for this software changed
http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html; Packages are in public domain,
including
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
, some questions we could ask is:
* is it possible to provide a sane default qmail configuration (the
basic 4 that exim and postfix provides in Debian seems to be a
minimum) ;
* does it supports ipv6 (non ipv6 ready software that isn't ipv4 ready
should not _enter_ Debian nowadays
points where we have to ask if we _should_ support some
kind of software, some questions we could ask is:
* is it possible to provide a sane default qmail configuration (the
basic 4 that exim and postfix provides in Debian seems to be a
minimum) ;
* does it supports ipv6 (non ipv6 ready
_should_ support some
kind of software, some questions we could ask is:
* is it possible to provide a sane default qmail configuration (the
basic 4 that exim and postfix provides in Debian seems to be a
minimum) ;
I do not think that is really necessary. I doubt there are lots of new
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 possible
[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
to avoid sending backscatter, since it is
trivial to forge SMTP and RFC2822 information. Then they never have to
send an NDR to anyone but their own users, preventing backscatter.
While I personally dislike qmail because of this problem, and because it
is gratuitously incompatible with every
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
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
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
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 GNU
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
://packages.debian.org/etch/qmail-src for some explanation.
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).
Jubal (...am I using Debian that long?)
--
[ Miroslaw L Baran | jabber id
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
://packages.debian.org/etch/qmail-src for some explanation.
So what changed? Did Bernstein change his licence!? And can't
the qmail-src maintainer just upload a binary package?
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
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
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
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
, as the
license didn't permit binary distribution. See e.g.
http://packages.debian.org/etch/qmail-src for some explanation.
So what changed? Did Bernstein change his licence!? And can't
the qmail-src maintainer just upload a binary package?
Qmail is now in the public domain as far as I understand
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
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 Internet
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
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
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
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”...
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
