[linux-elitists] What is the Elite MTA?
Sat Mar 31 15:33:28 PST 2001
On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 01:15:44AM -0500, tc lewis wrote:
(35 line paragraph... how about cutting those a bit if you want people to
> next comes your comments on his design, which i suppose is still in the
> technical realm, even if the technicalities are subjective. well, maybe
> not. let's examine. "qmail's insistence that binary packages must
> install all files including libraries, binaries, and configuration files
> within /var/qmail, and the default alias database being scattered among
> myriad tiny text files inside /var/qmail/aliases, all with names starting
> with the string ".qmail-"." afterwards, "(Nope, DJB-acolytes, I do know
> all about fastforward. As usual, you are missing the point, that one must
> hunt down and add this as a modification and add-on to qmail proper.)".
> so i guess i won't bother by responding with "you can change it" retorts.
> unfortunately, it's a good retort for the /var/qmail argument. "you can
> change it" is used all the time. sendmail doesn't install its files how
DJB prevents you from changing and distributing compiled packages AFAIK, so
that's only for small values of "you can change it"
> redhat's sendmail installs its files. a fine example of "you can change
> it" coming into play. of course, the response at this point is "but the
> [lack of] licensing prevents me from changing it", which falls under
> non-technical arguments. maybe it's still not easy to change some
> /var/qmail stuff beyond that. there are some patches out there of people
> who have already done it. that's probably not good enough for you. i
> guess i can't blame you. i'm not sure how easy it is to move sendmail's
> /var/spool/mqueue/ and /var/spool/mail/ directories. i'm guessing it's
> not cake. as for the whatever/aliases/ argument, yes, that's how qmail
> works. sendmail works with /etc/aliases. why should this even be an
> argument? "qmail is bad because it's not managed like sendmail". boggle.
> you even say, "Now, it might be argued that lots of small alias files are
> somehow more efficient than /etc/aliases, but why should all their names
> start with ".qmail-"?" well, given a technical argument, efficiency would
> certainly be my preference over naming conventions. you disagree? if so,
> on what grounds? on the grounds of it not being like sendmail? i, again,
> would consider that an invalid argument. why are they named ".qmail-"?
> to not conflict with any other mtas that may be present on the system.
> i'd like to say "duh", but i'm trying to be objective here. i guess it'd
> be nice if that were configurable, but i don't really see why that would
> be a huge issue. at least in comparason to the things that actually
> matter for mtas and delivery agents (such as efficiency, speed, security,
> sensible design...).
Microsoft is to operating systems & security ....
.... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ | Finger firstname.lastname@example.org for PGP key
More information about the linux-elitists