On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Gordon Rowell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > These sounds like good goals, and, I believe are totally in line with SME > > Server development over the years. We always avoided forks from upstream > > unless there was no option (templates helped immensely here) and made some > > choices based on best of breed at the time which may be different today (e.g > > qmail saved us from at least one remote sendmail exploits. I'd choose > > Postfix today, but I actually think that change is neutral from a server > > capability p.o.v.). > > I don't think I'd point out qmail as a win. Its 'accept everything > and bounce bad addresses later' policy forced me to drop SME as mail > servers long ago. Maybe that was fixed eventually...
Les, you are referring to qmail-smtpd, which hasn't been used on SME server for a very long time. Please keep this discussion strictly on topic. If you are not prepared to actually do anything, then please leave the discussion to those who are. --- Charlie _______________________________________________ Discussion about project organisation and overall direction To unsubscribe, e-mail [email protected] Searchable archive at http://lists.contribs.org/mailman/public/discussion/
