[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Status of qmail?



On Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 12:36:43AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> I've been a little occupied with CD images etc recently, and qmail's licence 
> tends to bump it a couple of notches down my priority list, but I think I
> will be able to comply with DJB's var-qmail conditions, and thus produce a 
> real actual qmail binary deb Real Soon Now (tm).  Of course it will result
> in a package that seriously violates our file system layout, but who cares,
> it's non-free anyway ;-)

I do for one..  =>  I'm pretty sure the symlink tree is close enough if it's
there.  I can already see the "This package is not {FSSTND,FHS} compliant"
bug.  =p


> As far as qmail for default MTA goes, I really cannot see Dan changing his 
> mind about the problems with his (lack of) licence, so don't expect to see 
> qmail in main any time soon --- therefore, it won't be our default MTA.

<sigh>  If you really don't think so, I won't bother trying..  =p  I still
think qmail is a better MTA than smail period and better than sendmail for a
small system or one in which you cannot afford to lose mail.


> As for trying gentle persuasion with Dan, it's probably best to leave him 
> alone.  He is fully aware of the issues as we see them, but happens to look at 
> things differently.
> 
> I would suggest people just agree to differ with him on that one, since he'll
> only make you angry otherwise, and that's not good for the soul (yours or his).
> 
> On a positive note, the addition of the var-qmail stuff to the distribution 
> permissions appears to be a concession of sorts, on his part, to accommodate
> the needs of distributors, so even if qmail never becomes free enough to be 
> allowed into Debian proper (i.e. main), at least this should be enough for 
> some commercial vendors to dump sendmail as their default MTA.

Problem is that many users are stuck with smail now because it's the
default.  Sendmail would be a better default, to say nothing of even exim or
one of the other MTAs that I've heard of recently.  I -STILL- wonder if
ssmtp+fetchmail+procmail is not be best way to handle mail on a dialup box
personally.  Qmail's setup is almost idiotproof, but the above would require
nothing you couldn't do in postinst if the postinst knew that you'd be doing
that..

Attachment: pgpnWgOjgINSM.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: