[linux-elitists] What is the Elite MTA?

Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO ruben@mrbrklyn.com
Fri Mar 30 11:27:55 PST 2001

It never fails that when the topic comes up with any of Bernstiens
Software, a flood of defensive emails come through.  The behavior is
similar to Jews For Jesus...challenge any one of them and drop on you like
a swarm full of quotes and challenges, with a bunch of prepackaged replies.

If they can't prove their case they overwhelm you with details...most of
them half baked.

Just looking at the virocity of this behavior is enough to make me avoid
his software at any cost....


On 2001.03.30 14:11:03 -0500 Rick Moen wrote:
begin  Jeremy McLeod quotation:
> This is ridiculous. In _any_ situation, _any_ program you choose to use
> for a particular task is going to have defaults that need to be changed
> in order to perform optimally. I seriously doubt postfix is any
> exception.
The point is that qmail takes a great deal more wrangling than similar
programs to achieve a reasonable state.  I found that to be the case,
Wayne Earl found that to be the case, and many others have, likewise.

And, because of the licensing, qmail may not be distributed in any
variant, repaired form (without special permission from Dan, which he
does not grant).  And _none_ of us has any special obligation to
convince _you_ of any of this.  We simply state what we've observed,
try to steer clear of the crank replies, and trust that reasonable
people will get the point.

> Why would I need to?

Indeed, please don't.  You'd only waste Wayne Earl's time.

> You seem to think qmail is hard. 

Wrong.  Configuring it to a reasonable state is _time consuming_.  And
thus not worth the trouble:  Postfix has all the advantage, and none of
the disadvantages.  (I happen to run Exim, as my needs are simpler.)

You would not have misunderstood this point, if you had bothered to read

> The only other relevant reference to qmail(other than it's licensing,
> which has nothing to do with its operation) are to its configuration and
> file layout. "...insanely wrong design...". Uh huh. Because you have a
> problem with it and are apparently unable to get it functioning
> correctly, it's "insanely wrong". Right.

1.  Your latter assumption is (again) incorrect, and results from an
apparent reading-comprehension difficulty.

2.  I cited an example.  And it's an essay that expresses my view.  Deal.

And, of course, the essay exists to point Dan's acolytes to for standard 
answers I would have given, if I were still willing to let them waste my
time.  Which reminds me:  I think I'd rather have lunch.  Please do get
around to reading that essay attentively, some day.  Or don't.  It makes
no difference to me.  Just cease the time-wasting rhetoric, please.

> What's the point, then?

Apparent to others, I trust, if not to you.
> None of these RFCs have reached "Standard" status.

However, they are already functioning as standards.   The SSH RFC is, by
comparison, still a _draft_, and yet it would be perverse to write
SSH-protocol software that contravenes it.

> Also, you're ignoring my point. AXFR/IXFR and NOTIFY are _not_
> necessary for the operation of the DNS.

Ah, yes:  That is of course the other charming aspect of Dan's software
(alluded to, earlier):  Dan's software doesn't have to cooperate with
anyone else's, because it's special and will lead where the whole rest
of the world will follow.

Cheers,                                      Right to keep and bear
Rick Moen                                  Haiku shall not be abridged
rick@linuxmafia.com                           Or denied.  So there.

Brooklyn Linux Solutions


More information about the linux-elitists mailing list