Once upon a time, Donnie Barnes said that he needed quick installation,
but couldn't assume particular uids, and couldn't rely on the system
assembler or linker being available.
I added the necessary linking tools to qmail. I described to him how a
precompiled package would work, and asked if tha
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 13
January 1999 at 02:52:50 +0100
> On 04-Jan-99 17:12:52, Dave Sill wrote something about "Re: Why Red Hat is not
>distributing qmail". I just couldn't help replying to it, thus:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I, also, would prefer not to accept email with bogus sender addresses,
> because of the double-bounce problem. However, *if* envelope sender
> checking becomes common, then spamming software will simply send
> everything with no envelope sender -- which we're obliged
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| And checking the sender is fairly expensive, too.
And yet, you have to check eventually, because you'll be
attempting to send a bounce there in a few seconds.
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 13 January 1999 at 16:12:49 GMT
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > And checking the sender is fairly expensive, too.
>
> No it's really not. You've got a caching name server on the local net,
> right?
Yes; but it's not that likely that I've got the sender's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Dec 1998, Dave Sill wrote:
>
>> I'm sure there are others, but you get the idea. From Red Hat's point
>> of view, the inertia behind sendmail is substantial and the mere
>> availability of a superior alternative isn't compelling enough to make
>> them switch.
>
What I do not get is why RH does not have an "unusual" section where
they would distribute software that does not fit their distribution
policies---similarly to debian's "nonfree" section.
Then they could distribute a qmail src rpm.
Mate
On Wed, Dec 30, 1998 at 02:20:44PM -0500, Peter C. Norton wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 1998 at 01:05:17PM -0600, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> > What I do not get is why RH does not have an "unusual" section where
> > they would distribute software that does not fit their distribution
> > policies---similarly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, Dave Sill wrote:
>>
>> OK, so why hasn't Red Hat switched to one of the other
>> better-than-sendmail MTA's such as exim?
>
>I don't know anything about exim, so I can't say.
Let me try again. Licensing alone could conceivably explain why Red
Hat do
On Wed, Dec 30, 1998 at 03:31:00PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> Let me try again. Licensing alone could conceivably explain why Red
> Hat doesn't ship qmail. But it does't explain why they don't ship
> exim, smail, zmailer, or any other OSS sendmail equivalent.
Let's suppose that aside from licensin
>It hasn't improved over itself much since 1.00, so the reasons
>probably haven't changed since their last evaluation, which was
>negative.
qmail itself hasn't had terribly major changes, but a lot of things have
been added along side qmail which make it much more attractive, such as
dot-forward,
Sam Said:
>No, the question is very specific: if Red Hat botched the sendmail RPM,
>how does that sole event somehow translate into Eric Allman's reputation
>being affected in any way?
>The answer, of course, is that it doesn't. This line of argument is
>silly.
No it's not. If i'm evaluating
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mate
On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, Sam wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, Dave Sill wrote:
> > Brister has to deal with whatever gunk is in the RPM because he's
> > going to get questions about it.
>
> If that's true, Brister would've never had the time to write inn 2.0,
While I agree with Sam here (frankly, peopl
"Peter C. Norton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>[Eric Allman]'s got a great reputation in the press and at the
>executive level. He's the name that's associated with sendmail,
>sendmail is publicised as running "75% of the mail on the internet"
>right? I think his code and mailer is shoddy, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, Dave Sill wrote:
>
>> Let me try again. Licensing alone could conceivably explain why Red
>> Hat doesn't ship qmail. But it does't explain why they don't ship
>> exim, smail, zmailer, or any other OSS sendmail equivalent.
>
>So, there has to be anothe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, Dave Sill wrote:
>> >
>> >> Let me try again. Licensing alone could conceivably explain why Red
>> >> Hat doesn't ship qmail. But it does't explain why they don't ship
>> >> exim,
On Mon, Jan 04, 1999 at 12:40:14PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> Apprently I need to nail *both* feet to the floor. Okay. Let me know
> which of the following statements you disagree with.
>
> 1) Red Hat ships sendmail.
>
> 2) Red Hat doesn't ship qmail, zmailer, exim, smail, or any other OSS
>
# > >Qmail can't even handle any kind of a reasonable load, right out of the
# > >box. You have to go back and install tcpserver for that.
# >
# > For those whose inetd's can't be configured to allow higher connection
# > rates, yes, tcpserver is required. Big deal.
#
# No inetd in existance c
This'll be my last word on the topic.
OK, stop cheering. :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
>
>> Question: *Why doesn't* Red Hat ship zmailer, exim, smail, or any
>> other OSS sendmail equivalent?
>
>Because they are not as well tested don't scale and do not offer
On Mon, Jan 04, 1999 at 02:45:22PM -0500, Sam wrote:
# On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, Justin Bell wrote:
#
# > # No inetd in existance can be configured for higher connections, yet still
# > # implement load limiting. Nobody running Qmail in any kind of a production
# ^^^
# > # mode
> But I've never seen any OSS that I'd put in the same class as
> djbware.
I have.
> >> Just because OSS works for some developers/projects, doesn't mean it's
> >> the only valid model.
> >
> >Well, then, please explain what is so special about Qmail that requires
> >something different. The a
Once upon a time, Donnie Barnes
Is he the only one making decisions at RH. What kind of freedom did RH
have when they *started* distributing Netscape?
Mate
> Is he the only one making decisions at RH. What kind of freedom did RH
> have when they *started* distributing Netscape?
RedHat has AFAIK changed policy since then. (They used to include other commercial
programs in their distribution, but stopped doing so)
bt
On 23 Dec 1998 06:40:20 -, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
>I tried to work with Donnie Barnes. I put a lot of effort into making
>qmail distributable in binary form. But he isn't willing to guarantee
>cross-platform compatibility. It saddens me that he hasn't been honestly
>telling his users the natu
=
> --
> From: Fred Lindberg[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Reply To: Fred Lindberg
> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 1998 11:30 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail
>
> On 23 Dec 1998 06:40:20 -, D. J.
Sam writes:
> I don't recall many questions on the list from Debian users and how
> confused they are with the different location of all the files.
Debian didn't distribute the binary package. They knew they were
violating the var-qmail compatibility requirements.
> As far as vendor's traditiona
D. J. Bernstein writes:
> I tried to work with Donnie Barnes. I put a lot of effort into making
> qmail distributable in binary form. But he isn't willing to guarantee
> cross-platform compatibility.
He's committed to cross-platform compatibility -- in the form of the
File Hierarchy Standard.
Sam wrote:
> On 23 Dec 1998, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
>
> > In fact, forks are traditional UNIX vendor behavior. I described how
> > Debian had screwed up cross-platform compatibility by changing the qmail
> > file locations. He dismissed my concerns, and said that he needed to
> > change the paths
On 04-Jan-99 17:39:08, Sam wrote something about "Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing
qmail". I just couldn't help replying to it, thus:
> On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >Qmail can't even handle any kind of a reasonabl
On 04-Jan-99 17:12:52, Dave Sill wrote something about "Re: Why Red Hat is not
distributing qmail". I just couldn't help replying to it, thus:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>In some situations Qmail is less efficient than sendmail, and its
>>performance is sorely la
On Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at 02:52:50AM +0100, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> >>Qmail does not support RBL, right out of the box.
>
> > Nor should it. There's an add-on to do that.
>
>RBL support, these days, in a world that isn't as perfect as qmail was
> designed to view it, is not an option
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen writes:
> CNAME lookup failed temporarily.
> Only two addresses to guess from.
qmail 1.03 skips CNAME lookups for sender addresses.
Why am I still seeing requests for features that I added in 1997? Is it
really so hard to imagine that qmail has changed since you instal
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The basic problem is that [Dan doesn't] trust Redhat.
Good for him! He'd be a fool to trust them. There's no basis for trust
between them.
>If [he] trusted them, then [he] would give them the freedom to
>distribute modified binaries.
If pigs had win
>
>Sendmail is *the* UNIX mailer. Everyone knows how to work it. It's
>well documented, well proven, and hopefully most of the major bugs
>have been found. We can tweak the source any way we see fit. Not
>many (paying) customers are complaining about it. Sure, qmail is
>better,
Bill Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Dave Sill wrote:
>>
>>Sendmail is *the* UNIX mailer. Everyone knows how to work it. It's
>>well documented, well proven, and hopefully most of the major bugs
>>have been found. We can tweak the source any way we see fit. Not
>>many (paying) customer
On Tue, Dec 29, 1998 at 04:12:27PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> Remember, Red Hat is a big bux commercial operation (see recent news
> reports of substantial investment in Red Hat by Intel). They don't
> produce Open Source Software because they're nice guys and it makes
> them feel good to give awa
On Tue, Dec 29, 1998 at 04:25:55PM -0500, Sam wrote:
> Not when they have a functional MTA available, that doesn't come with any
> strings attached, that quietly installs itself, non-relaying out of the
> box, and will even do certain things that Qmail cannot do, such as reject
> non-resolvable en
On 29-Dec-98 22:30:41, Adam D. McKenna wrote something about "Re: Why Red Hat is not
distributing qmail". I just couldn't help replying to it, thus:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 1998 at 04:25:55PM -0500, Sam wrote:
[sendmail]
>> box, and will even do certain things that Qmail c
"Peter C. Norton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Only part right. Those I've talked to at redhat say that they give
>their work back to the community, and for free, because they believe
>it's a valid business model, but also because it makes them feel good.
>They were and are bucking the pointy-ha
gt;
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 1999 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail
On Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at 02:52:50AM +0100, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> >>Qmail does not support RBL, right out of the box.
>
> > Nor should it. There's an add-on to do that.
&g
41 matches
Mail list logo
