> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Kohlsmith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:44 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Re: Qmailadmin feature request > > > > > I believe you're using the wrong MTA if you don't like > patches. :-) > > > Qmail is the "a patchy mail server" of mail servers. > > > I keep hoping that will change sometime soon. :) I guess no-one has > > released a patch that everyone just can't do without though. > > I've put together a monster patch which is a composite of all > of these > patches: > > badmailunk > badrcptto > qmail-queue-patch > accept-5xx > conredirect > qmail-1.03-mfcheck.3.patch > qmail-103-bigdns > tarpit > ext_todo-20020504 > nullenvsender-recipcount > qmail-0.0.0.0 > qmail-1.03-qmtpc > qmail-bouncecontrol > qmail-1.03-tls > netscape-progress > qmail-send.mimeheaders > qmail-pop3d+vpomail > > So far, so good. :-) > > > That says a lot for qmail's original design, which I like. > > I agree. However there are a lot of little things (as seen > in the patchlist > above) which I wish would be rolled in to the next qmail > release. I don't > think that's going to happen, though. DJB seems happy with > qmail the way it > is and to be honest, any changes means he has to check it all > over again for > security. Not fun. > > Regards, > Andrew >
Andrew, Just out of genuine curiosity, were you actually seeing problems that required each of those patches? I've been running a qmail/vpopmail/sqwebmail/qmailadmin setup for the past year now and have yet to actually find need for a patch. Regards, Robert
