> My mailbox is getting crowded with a subject that is a "No brainer"
It would be a *no branier* if anyone could point to a simple set of
clear directives for qmail that apply to the whole world and not just
certain USA users (can you?). The reason there's a lot of traffic is
because there's a lot of concern. Feel free to enter the debate with a
meaningful point.
wlking4 wrote:
>
> Everyone:
>
> My mailbox is getting crowded with a subject that is a "No brainer"
>
> If you don't like djb's license, write your own mail program and outline
> your license your way.
> You are making a helpful mail list appear to be SPAM
>
> William L. King
> President, ChainSCAN-BDI, Inc. DBA enPHocus
> EMail: william.king@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:william.king@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Phone: (314) 895-0811
> http:// www.enphocus.com
> "Our Business Is Data Transport"
>
> This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and
> is the property of ChainSCAN-BDI, Inc.. It is intended only for the person
> to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not
> authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use
> this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error,
> please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laurent Bercot [mailto:ska-qmail@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 8:02 AM
> To: qmaildist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Where is the qmail Licence?
>
> > Apart from all of this, I'd really like to know the rationale behind
> > Dan's position.
>
> That one's an easy one.
>
> - Reliability of the qmail setup.
> DJB is absolutely sure that qmail works as intended. He's so certain
> it has no security holes that he offers a cash guarantee. However, he
> can only guarantee software that _he_ has written, and that is working
> under the setup _he_ has chosen.
> Patches might be broken ; installation in /usr or anywhere else than
> /var might not work for obscure reasons ; etc. etc. And since DJB
> wants "qmail" to just work, then "qmail" should only be the approved
> one.
> Of course, the flip-side is that DJB should correct problems himself
> as soon as they are discovered, and we all agree that qmail-1.04 is
> definitely needed.
>
> - Centralization and efficiency of support resources.
> From what I've seen, when somebody has a problem with some piece of
> software, 90% of the time it's a configuration problem - including
> packaging mistakes from some third-party packager.
> If people go around and distribute their own modified qmail version,
> anything can happen, anything can break anywhere, and people who're
> trying to help won't be able to debug things at all, because there are
> too many possibilities. Ever seen a sendmail support list ? On the
> other hand, if qmail has the same setup everywhere, then it's much
> easier to reproduce problems, to track them down, to find bugs if
> there are, etc. etc.
>
> I'm not saying DJB's choices are the only ones that achieve those
> goals. I'm only saying that they do achieve them in a way that no
> other software I know does. And it would be all the better if DJB
> would 1. explain this more clearly than I or his webpages do ;
> 2. release more often when there's a need.
>
> --
> Ska
|
