This one time, at band camp, Wouter Verhelst said: > > I'd agree that there are way better ones out there. But I'd also say > that it doesn't really matter which is best, and that this type of > behaviour is quite childish. As long as qmail is free, packaged > properly, and integrates well with the rest of Debian, I don't see why > anyone should oppose its packaging. > > Whether or not it's a good MTA, the fact is that it's a *popular* MTA. > That alone should be a good reason to package it. I don't agree with this, actually. qmail is so poorly designed it can't stay running without a supervisor, and in it's default state is a giant producer of backscatter. I believe Debian is about quality software, not just popular software, and those two reasons alone are sufficient for me to say qmail fails the "quality" test. Take care, -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature