[linux-elitists] What is the Elite MTA?
Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO
Fri Mar 30 11:29:35 PST 2001
How did your email get through to me.... you were sopposed to me in my spam
On 2001.03.30 13:24:05 -0500 Jeremy McLeod wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 10:04:09AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
>begin Jeremy McLeod quotation:
>> If your definition of "properly" is something different from "it does
>> what i tell it to do" then I suppose so.
>I suppose that mostly depends on whether you're happy with Dan's
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
>> As for the URL, I don't really see anything relevant to this
>That is true; you don't. And I don't propose to start detailing all
>that one goes through in trying to bang qmail into what I regard as
>reasonable operation. You might ask Wayne Earl <email@example.com>,
>whose post I directed your attention to, as it's possible that he has
Why would I need to? I know exactly what needs to be done to qmail's
configuration in order for it to perform in the many various ways that I
want it to, in many different situations. Why would I need someone else
to tell me something I already know?
You seem to think qmail is hard. You're wrong, but you don't care.
That's fine, but don't think me an idiot because I like software you
don't; that's pigheaded and stupid.
>> I don't see anything about any peculiarities in qmail's operation other
>> than its "...trait (in earlier versions) of attempting to cram as much
>> SMTP mail as possible..."
>That's correct; you don't. But only because you weren't paying
>attention to the rest of the essay. (That was, of course, cited just as
>one of innumerable possible examples of Dan pigheadedly not caring about
>getting along with the rest of the world. His software is sufficiently
>infamous for that, that I see no need to trot out a list of them.)
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.
>> ...and if you actually read the documentation for qmail, you can
>> control that feature(as in turn it on and off).
>Of course. But you are thick-headedly ignoring the point for which
What's the point, then?
>> For one thing, NOTIFY and AXFR/IXFR are not part of the DNS.
>RFCs #1995, 1996, 2146, and 2535 must be a collective delusion shared by
>the IETF and me, then.
#1995 - Standards Track
#1996 - Standards Track
#2146 - Informational
#2535 - Standards Track
None of these RFCs have reached "Standard" status. Also, you're ignoring
my point. AXFR/IXFR and NOTIFY are _not_ necessary for the operation of
the DNS. They're BIND standards, not DNS standards, and only necessary
for interoperability if you use BIND for nameservice. Well, guess what?
I don't use BIND, and none of the nameservers I use for secondary use
BIND either. Do I use NOTIFY+AXFR? No. Is my DNS broken? No.
I'm going to Boston to see my doctor. He's a very sick man.
-- Fred Allen
Brooklyn Linux Solutions
More information about the linux-elitists