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

Re: Bug#265762: ITP: tpop3d -- tpop3d is a fast, extensible, secure UNIX POP3 server

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 11:57:11PM +0300, Rolandas Juodzbalis wrote:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
>  > I can currently count at least these servers than can support pop3

> >Is there any reason why tpop3d should be better than any of those? And
> >if so, which of these servers can we drop IYO? Please don't understand
> >me wrong, but we already have an incredible amount of software in
> >Debian. If I look at the list of orphaned packages, or at the list of
> >long-standing RC-bugs (currently 167 in sarge, much more in sid), than
> >it seems sometimes to me that we have too many than too less packages.
> >
> >Please don't take this personal. It's not meant as an vote about your
> >package, but more like a general remark that's also valid for this
> >package.

> Thanks for your opinion, but I will try to describe my small motives ;)
> Yes it is true from point of current debian developers, maintainers and 
> bug fixers that one more package is one more possible headache in 
> future. But from my side, as standart system administrator, I was unable 
> to use any of your listed pop3 server to get my stuff working as I 
> wanted. Some of them have unreproduceable bugs with MS MUA's, some are 
> too complex for setuping on small systems. Currently I'm using tpop3d 
> for more that half year and very happy with it's perfomance and 
> features. So I wondered why such great pop3 server has no package in my 
> favorite distro? Instead of filling wishlist I maked package. Yes, 
> instead being passive user of Debian I wanted to make some work for it. 
>  And it is up to Debian community to choose if I will be passive user 
> or will start to do something really useful.
Cool.  I wish you luck in finding a sponsor.  Be sure to list your
motives and rational for using this software rather than another in the
package description.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: