>Hello. I've setup vpopmail for the first time last night and so far
>it works pretty good. I really don't like the fact that it logs to
>syslog and mail.log, however, and would prefer to use multilog with it
>under supervise which works for my qmail/qmail-smtp logging. I
>currently have a /var
Ruprecht,
/var/qmail/bin/maildirmake home_directory_of_user/Maildir
and as seen often on this list, "What do the logs say?" (TM) -
in particular, if the user you're having problems with doesn't have
a Maildir, perhaps they're not able to receive mail anyway...
cheers,
Andrew.
--
F
Hello. It is necessary to me to authorize everyone, who tries to send mail
through my SMTP server. I want to use for this purpose authorization of a
POP3 server. I want that authorization was requested for the user, which is
specified in a field 'from:' of the head of the sent message. How it is
p
qmail Digest 14 Nov 2000 11:00:00 - Issue 1183
Topics (messages 52072 through 52137):
*.lock files (?)
52072 by: Miguel Beccari
Re: how to use qmail-remote
52073 by: James Raftery
Re: qmail 1.04
52074 by: Peter van Dijk
451 qq Trouble creating files in Queue
take the non-local domains out of the locals file.
Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Oliver Menzel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to make all mail incoming for a bunch of hosts to be
> delivered to this one mail host.
>
> So i'
Hi, I cannot unsubscribe an old email address which I no longer use but
forwards to this one.
I'd like to subscribe using the proper account, but don't want duplicates...
--
Casey Allen Shobe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://aixos.net
**Using AixOS.net Webmail Interface**
I just moved from Sendmail to Qmail and I'm having problems with it.
Mails from a mail client seem to go through without any problems but
when I manually send a mail through a telnet connection to port 25 I
get the following error after I send the EOF during the message section;
451 unable to exe
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 02:54:00PM -, Mark Anderson wrote:
> 451 unable to exec qq (#4.3.0)
To place a message in to the queue qmail needs to run
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-queue
The error you're seeing is often caused by having /var mounted with the
nosuid option (qmail-queue is setuid).
james
Hi
i would like to know what qmail-qmqpd and qmail-qmtpd are used for? and
where i could get more information about the same.
thanks
ram
Does any one Have a good startup script for qmail on RH 6.2 Linux. The one
that came with the "Running Qmail" book has some sort of error in it. It
basically gives me an error on startup that says line 14 error somewhere
around stop). I would appreciate the help
Regards,
Travis
Travis Turne
Gang -
I've just reimplemented rblsmtpd and have received requests to log seperately
the hosts which are beign denied. A cursory scan of the log shows that I
should be able to parse the log based on the 451 errors, but I am an unskilled
scripter and cannot figure out how to further manipulate mu
Travis Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does any one Have a good startup script for qmail on RH 6.2 Linux. The one
> that came with the "Running Qmail" book has some sort of error in it.
The quality of that book has been questioned on this list and elsewhere.
Try "Life with qmail" by Dave S
how do I erase the contents of the mailqueue! I put large mails by
mistake for sending. Since I'm paying my traffic, i would like to
erase all that is in the queue. How do i do that?
Thank you!
Hi-
I have a qmail server hosting several virtual domains, and all mail
delivered to recipients in the virtual domains have a Delivered-To
header line indicating the "main" domain name of the server.
I want to delete this line, and I understand that the -d option to
preline is the way to do t
Hi,
I need to implement forwarding of the form user@somedomain ->
user@someotherdomain. i.e. the original user at the original domain is
propagated to the forwarded domain. Are there any mystical variables that
can be used within the alias file ?
If anyone can help I would be most grateful,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>how do I erase the contents of the mailqueue! I put large mails by
>mistake for sending. Since I'm paying my traffic, i would like to
>erase all that is in the queue. How do i do that?
See:
http://www.faqts.com/knowledge-base/view.phtml/aid/6567/fid/286/lang/en
-Dav
"RamKumar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>i would like to know what qmail-qmqpd and qmail-qmtpd are used for? and
>where i could get more information about the same.
QMQP is the Quick Mail Queueing Protocol.
QMTP is the Quick Mail Transfer Protocol.
QMQP is used by clients of smart hosts to pawn o
"Michael A. Borisov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hello. It is necessary to me to authorize everyone, who tries to send mail
>through my SMTP server. I want to use for this purpose authorization of a
>POP3 server.
Sounds like you want SMTP-after-POP. I.e., users who successfully
authenticate via
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>My qmail host, mail.sidell.org, is the MX host for domain sidell.org.
>I have another host named lyris.sidell.org. (Actually, it's another
>IP address on the same host, being handled by Lyris.)
>
>If I SMTP to mail.sidell.org and send a message addressed to
>[EMAIL PROT
"Pedro Pires" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Can anyone tell me how do i clear the queue of qmail?
See:
http://www.faqts.com/knowledge-base/view.phtml/aid/6567/fid/286/lang/en
-Dave
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 13:27:10 -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >My qmail host, mail.sidell.org, is the MX host for domain sidell.org.
> >I have another host named lyris.sidell.org. (Actually, it's another
> >IP address on the same host, being handled by Lyris.)
> >
> >If I
Tristan Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I need to implement forwarding of the form user@somedomain ->
> user@someotherdomain. i.e. the original user at the original domain is
> propagated to the forwarded domain. Are there any mystical variables that
> can be used within the alias file ?
I am reading this book by B. Schneier, in particular, the section
`Cracking and hacking contests'. He thinks that contests (like
offering $1000 for finding a security hole in a product) are bad for
four main reasons, the first reason being that the contests are
usually unfair since the author of
Hi,
I'm running qmail-1.03, ezmlm-idx, verh patch, big concurrency patch.
We have subscribers to morning, midday and afternoon bulletins that receive
a single message with no personalisation.
I'd like to send one-off email that are personalised (i.e. Dear Name-Here).
My current set-up for this
Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am reading this book by B. Schneier, in particular, the section
>`Cracking and hacking contests'. He thinks that contests (like
>offering $1000 for finding a security hole in a product) are bad for
>four main reasons, the first reason being that the cont
Ok,
I was a little reserved about calling another script due to performance
issues, but if that is the only way then that will suffice...
Many Thanks,
Tristan Graham.
At 13:01 14/11/2000 -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
>Tristan Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I need to implement forw
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 02:39:25PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> >So has any expert ever audited qmail or djbdns?
>
> No. Any audit worth doing would be prohibitively expensive for a
> freeware project. $1000 wouldn't even begin to cover it, at least for
> qmail.
Not to mention that the whole point
At 11:49 AM -0800 on 11/14/00, Adam McKenna wrote:
> It sounds like the author of this book is a M$-type weenie.
No, I think not. He regularly publishes articles about weak
encryption in Microsoft products. His perspective is just
different than yours.
See http://www.counterpane.com (especial
re: Schneier's commentary in Secrets and Lies
Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> He says, the best way to evaluate the security of a product is to have it
> audited by security experts.
> So has any expert ever audited qmail or djbdns?
As Dave Sill pointed out, no formal security audit
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Adam McKenna wrote:
> Not to mention that the whole point of freeware and open source software in
> general is to give everyone the ability to audit the software, not just a
> select few. It sounds like the author of this book is a M$-type weenie.
>
Who, Bruce? Bwahaha...
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 01:20:32PM -0600, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> I am reading this book by B. Schneier, in particular, the section
> `Cracking and hacking contests'. He thinks that contests (like
> offering $1000 for finding a security hole in a product) are bad for
> four main reasons, the first r
> > >So has any expert ever audited qmail or djbdns?
> >
> > No. Any audit worth doing would be prohibitively expensive for a
> > freeware project. $1000 wouldn't even begin to cover it, at
> > least for qmail.
Whoa, sure, it'd cost a load if you paid someone to do it, but open
source has other
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 02:39:25PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> >So has any expert ever audited qmail or djbdns?
>
> No. Any audit worth doing would be prohibitively expensive for a
> freeware project. $1000 wouldn't even begin to cover it, at least for
> qmail.
I need to add that Schneier thinks o
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 14:49:34 -0500
From: Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Not to mention that the whole point of freeware and open source software in
general is to give everyone the ability to audit the software, not just a
select few. It sounds like the author of this book is
> Not to mention that the whole point of freeware and open source software in
> general is to give everyone the ability to audit the software, not just a
> select few. It sounds like the author of this book is a M$-type weenie.
I don't think so. He's the author of perhaps the most popular book o
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 02:49:34PM -0500, Adam McKenna wrote:
> Not to mention that the whole point of freeware and open source software in
> general is to give everyone the ability to audit the software, not just a
> select few. It sounds like the author of this book is a M$-type weenie.
I cann
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 02:39:25PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> > >So has any expert ever audited qmail or djbdns?
> >
> > No. Any audit worth doing would be prohibitively expensive for a
> > freeware project. $1000 wouldn't even begin to cover it, at least
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 12:02:40PM -0800, Ryan Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Adam McKenna wrote:
>
> > Not to mention that the whole point of freeware and open source software in
> > general is to give everyone the ability to audit the software, not just a
> > select few. It sounds like
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not to mention that the whole point of freeware and open source software in
> general is to give everyone the ability to audit the software, not just a
> select few. It sounds like the author of this book is a M$-type weenie.
Do you know Bruce Schneier
Quoted from Adam McKenna [15 Nov 2000]:
> Not to mention that the whole point of freeware and open source software in
> general is to give everyone the ability to audit the software, not just a
> select few.
I agree with the general statement, but neither qmail nor djbdns are
open source (I don't
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 02:01:07PM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> re: Schneier's commentary in Secrets and Lies
>
> Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > He says, the best way to evaluate the security of a product is to have it
> > audited by security experts.
> > So has any expert eve
Mate Wierdl wrote:
>
> I am reading this book by B. Schneier, in particular, the section
> `Cracking and hacking contests'. He thinks that contests (like
> offering $1000 for finding a security hole in a product) are bad for
> four main reasons, the first reason being that the contests are
> usu
Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So has any expert ever audited qmail or djbdns?
I imagine Dan has, and many would consider him an expert, but one is
rarely the best auditor of one's own work.
paul
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 03:16:27PM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote:
> Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So has any expert ever audited qmail or djbdns?
>
> I imagine Dan has, and many would consider him an expert, but one is
> rarely the best auditor of one's own work.
Indeed, it would be inter
2000-11-14-15:01:07 Charles Cazabon:
> However, as far as qmail goes: all the crackers in the world have
> had access to the qmail source code and design documentation for
> years, and none have yet found an exploitable security hole. You
> could consider that a fairly thorough audit-by-fire.
And
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Travis Turner wrote:
> Does any one Have a good startup script for qmail on RH 6.2 Linux. The one
> that came with the "Running Qmail" book has some sort of error in it. It
> basically gives me an error on startup that says line 14 error somewhere
> around stop). I woul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Whilst an audit is a good idea, I don't see how a competition and
> time in the field can actual make matters worse.
It can make people think a program is secure when no audit has been
done, reducing the likelihood that anyone will call for an audit,
leaving holes undi
>
> He also thinks that even having a software out and used for a few
> years without incidence does not imply that it is secure. He says,
> the best way to evaluate the security of a product is to have it
> audited by security experts.
>
There is no one right answer for this. Payment for a di
* Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So has any expert ever audited qmail or djbdns?
> No. Any audit worth doing would be prohibitively expensive for a
> freeware project. $1000 wouldn't even begin to cover it, at least for
> qmail.
Doesn't the fac
2000-11-14-15:07:28 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> [Bruce Schneier is] the author of perhaps the most popular book on
> computer security that's available to the public.
Which book are you referring to? "Secrets and Lies"? While it's a
powerful contribution in the way of standing back and re-examining
the
2000-11-14-15:11:43 Paul Jarc:
> Only the "select few" will be able to audit it well, regardless of
> the license, and they can afford to charge a hefty fee, regardless
> of the license.
They certainly can. They do not always choose to do so, however. If
enough people really wanted to get a deter
Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am reading this book by B. Schneier, in particular, the section
> `Cracking and hacking contests'. He thinks that contests (like offering
> $1000 for finding a security hole in a product) are bad for four main
> reasons, the first reason being that the
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, I stand corrected. But you have to realize that this is the same
> argument put forward by many people pushing closed source solutions over
> open source ones (that it has been analyzed by "experts"), and
> invariably many security holes are found a
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 03:11:43PM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote:
> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Not to mention that the whole point of freeware and open source software in
> > general is to give everyone the ability to audit the software, not just a
> > select few.
>
> Dan's software is
I am going to go out on a limb here and declare Bruce a non-M$ weenie. It
took guts I tell you.
Regards,
Travis
At 03:11 PM 11/14/2000 -0500, Paul Jarc wrote:
>Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 02:39:25PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> > > >So has any expert ever
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 09:11:32PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Mr. Schneier is respected for his expertise and cryptography, and just
> because he states that head money for bugs is no good, does not make him
> an M S type weenie.
You're right, Bruce Scheiner is a god, and I'm really sorry fo
2000-11-14-15:11:55 Adam McKenna:
> But you have to realize that this is the same argument put forward
> by many people pushing closed source solutions over open source
> ones (that it has been analyzed by "experts"), and invariably many
> security holes are found anyway.
Again, it helps to under
> I agree with the general statement, but neither qmail nor djbdns are
> open source (I don't know the definition of ``freeware'', so I'll
> leave it alone). I believe (without further justification) that a
> piece of software without general modification permissions does not
> really inspire impr
Thus spake Mate Wierdl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Not really. There are many examples to the contrary---quoted in the
> book. For example, there were buffer overflows discovered in Kerberos
> which had been in the code for 10 years, or Mailman had glaring
> security flows no one noticed for three ye
Travis Turner wrote:
>
> Does any one Have a good startup script for qmail on RH 6.2 Linux. The one
> that came with the "Running Qmail" book has some sort of error in it. It
> basically gives me an error on startup that says line 14 error somewhere
> around stop). I would appreciate the help
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 12:04:46PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Bruce Schneier is a very long way from being an ``M$-type weenie.''
> He's a pretty serious security dude. See, e.g.,
> http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram.html.
Indeed, he is using ezmlm (idx!) for his newsletter. So he
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> Indeed, it would be interesting what kind of testing he is running on
> qmail, say (he says there are over 100 tests), and how he is trying to
> make sure his software is secure.
If you want to see some of the tests he does, check out rts.tests that
com
Thus spake Mate Wierdl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Indeed, it would be interesting what kind of testing he is running on
> qmail, say (he says there are over 100 tests), and how he is trying to
> make sure his software is secure. Perhaps his closed to the public
> cryptography course notes would give
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 03:35:35PM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Whilst an audit is a good idea, I don't see how a competition and
> > time in the field can actual make matters worse.
>
> It can make people think a program is secure when no audit has been
> done, reducin
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 03:35:35PM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Whilst an audit is a good idea, I don't see how a competition and
> > time in the field can actual make matters worse.
>
> It can make people think a program is secure when no audit has been
> done, reducin
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 04:13:19PM -0500, Bennett Todd wrote:
> 2000-11-14-15:07:28 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > [Bruce Schneier is] the author of perhaps the most popular book on
> > computer security that's available to the public.
>
> Which book are you referring to? "Secrets and Lies"? While it's a
Thus spake Robin S. Socha ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > No. Any audit worth doing would be prohibitively expensive for a
> > freeware project. $1000 wouldn't even begin to cover it, at least for
> > qmail.
> Doesn't the fact that they are included in OpenBSD (as ports) hint at
> the fact that some of t
hi,
Agreed seems IMHO that ifone wanted to smear djb they would do it
as soon as they had the evidence and they have tried and so far failed
to provide evidence that the specific proggies are flawed. Whereas
some of the add ons have been shown to be.. One of the reasons am
interested in rollin
Lipscomb, Al <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 14 November 2000 at 15:37:51 -0500
> Security "experts" are a dime a dozen.
That's certainly true. I've actually testified in court on the topic,
which goes to show how desperate people get sometimes. (I suspect I
know more relevant stuff than quite
2000-11-14-16:24:36 Adam McKenna:
> Bruce Scheiner is a god, [...]
It's possible you're being sarcastic, but there are those who would
very nearly agree with you. While he may not actually be a god, he
is certainly the single most important contributor to getting really
top notch crypto out of re
Paul Jarc wrote:
>
> Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So has any expert ever audited qmail or djbdns?
>
> I imagine Dan has, and many would consider him an expert, but one is
> rarely the best auditor of one's own work.
I, as the author of the qmail-ldap patch, have looked deeply int
Hi,
My .qmail-default have the line: | /var/qmail/bin/fastforward -d
/etc/aliases.cdb. The /etc/aliases have the line: MAILER-DAEMON: admin . I'm
receiving a lot of emails from someone trying to spam me but, the accounts
that the spamer is trying to spam doesn't exists so, the qmail send
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 06:22:27PM -0500, Bennett Todd wrote:
> 2000-11-14-16:24:36 Adam McKenna:
> > Bruce Scheiner is a god, [...]
>
> It's possible you're being sarcastic, but there are those who would
> very nearly agree with you. While he may not actually be a god, he
> is certainly the sing
2000-11-14-16:37:06 Lipscomb, Al:
> Open Source is often used to describe software that has its source
> code available regardless of the license involved.
Could be, people use words as they wish. But if you'll take a visit
to http://www.opensource.org/>, you'll find that the term was
very specif
Hi,
I'm running qmail-1.03, ezmlm-idx, verh patch, big concurrency patch.
We have subscribers to morning, midday and afternoon bulletins that receive
a single message with no personalisation.
I'd like to send one-off email that are personalised (i.e. Dear Name-Here).
My current set-up for this
Quoted from Lipscomb, Al [15 Nov 2000]:
> Open Source is often used to describe software that has its source code
> available regardless of the license involved.
Just because it's ``often'' done doesn't mean it's correct. To me, and
possibly others, open source is used to describe software that u
Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could be, people use words as they wish. But if you'll take a visit to
> http://www.opensource.org/>, you'll find that the term was very
> specifically drafted by a group of people with an agenda, and they've
> produced a branding service based on an Ope
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 01:14:15PM +1300, Chris K. Young wrote:
> Quoted from Lipscomb, Al [15 Nov 2000]:
> > Open Source is often used to describe software that has its source code
> > available regardless of the license involved.
>
> Just because it's ``often'' done doesn't mean it's correct. T
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 01:14:15PM +1300, Chris K. Young wrote:
> Quoted from Lipscomb, Al [15 Nov 2000]:
> > Open Source is often used to describe software that has its source code
> > available regardless of the license involved.
>
> Just because it's ``often'' done doesn't mean it's correct. T
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm confused. How exactly does any of this affect the ability of people
> to download the source and examine/use it to determine if it's secure
> or not? After all, wasn't that the point of the discussion?
>
Some folks who are capable of doing good
Hi,
I'm currently using a single address for all my list mail, and I run
procmail to filter the emails to their respective mail folders. I'd
like to switch to separate addresses (one per list) and filter the
mails with .qmail-listname files. However, the reason I've not yet
changed is that I ha
how can i make qmail accept mails for
user@[123.123.123.123] when the machine 123.123.123.123 forwards all mails
to our qmail server?
wolfgang
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 01:21:03PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> He's not alone in that opinion; I think that opinion has a lot of merit,
> although I wouldn't go so far as to say that such contests are *bad*. But
> I don't think they actually prove anything.
Exactly Schneier's opinion: contests
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 11:25:27PM +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote:
> Thus spake Mate Wierdl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > make sure his software is secure. Perhaps his closed to the public
> > cryptography course notes would give a hint.
>
> Mate, what kind of problem do you have?
> What does qmail h
In the immortal words of Adam McKenna ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> It sounds like the author of this book is a M$-type weenie.
Bruce Schneier, "M$-type weenie."
God I'm glad I wasn't trying to eat or drink anything when I read
that...
"That would be `no.'"
-n
Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 14 November 2000 at 15:57:34 -0600
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 12:04:46PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > Bruce Schneier is a very long way from being an ``M$-type weenie.''
> > He's a pretty serious security dude. See, e.g.,
> > http://www.count
Ryan Russell wrote:
> If you want to see some of the tests he does, check out rts.tests that
> comes in the djbdns distribution. I happened to be looking at that last
> night. It's far from a complete security audit, of course, but it does
> try out a lot of the obvious stuff. It would probab
My proposed setup is something like this. clients connect for
smtp and pop to this machine mach1. When i receive a mail from remote or
from local, it goes through the usual routine of checking for receipt host and
other things and writes to the qmail queue. From the queue the mail has to be
You
can use the smtproutes control file to send domains on to another machine
from the queue.
eg:
echo
domain.com:[xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx{ >>
/var/qmail/control/smtproutes
where
domain.com is the domain to send to machine2 and xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx is the IP
address of machine2
Regards,
Charl
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 04:13:19PM -0500, Bennett Todd wrote:
> efforts is on monitoring and risk management. With that as a given,
> I expect he runs sendmail and BIND; things like qmail and djbdns are
> for those of us who haven't given up on really completely securing
> our systems:-).
First I
Quoted from Adam McKenna [15 Nov 2000]:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 01:14:15PM +1300, Chris K. Young wrote:
> > ``The [licence] must
> > explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source
^^
> > code.''.
>
> qmail conf
> Allowing patches is necessary, but it's not sufficient. Debian's
> Free Software Guidelines has a similar clause, and I see no other
> clause that DJB's licence conflicts with. If I go by your statement,
> why is qmail listed under the non-free section?
Ability to distribute binaries built from
92 matches
Mail list logo
