--- Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Huh? What am I missing, here? To the best of my > my fault i misunderstood what you said, reraad your post. > Point of information for you: Saying "mbox format" > _doesn't_ imply > /var/spool/mail. The MDA might be configured to use > ~/Mail/mbox, or any > of a variety of alternatives. yes i know, did my post said anything like that? The assumption to the > contrary is a > Bernsteinism. did you assumed that i was thinking like that? > > > (IMHO maildir is the way to go ) > > Gratuitous advocacy noted without further comment. > I figure admins will > make their own decisions based on their own needs. ofcourse everyone is entitled to use what ever he/she wants as long as it fits his/her needs. > In rhetoric, we call this fallacy "begging the > question". This means > basing your conclusion on a doubtful premise that is > carefully unexamined. in context, i was refering to security design having 14 exploits in 1996-1997 and 2(?!?) not so recent ones says something about the security design in sendmail. Exploits that can take over the machine running sendmail - have you heard of such exploits with postfix and qmail? > > Please note: "Correct design" is _not_ defined as > "Our Hero said this > is the only acceptable way." Gratuitous criticism noted without further comment. > Painfully and very manually, I wouldn't doubt: I > must say that writing > one's own substitute for stdio.h is a bitigure > pathological. Gratuitous criticism noted without further comment. Ofcourse you already know the reason right? > > > Huh? Please explain. You referred me to > qmail-queue. Here's the > manpage: oh i was referring to qmail-queue fix (queue-fix) and qmail-queue repair ( queue-repair ) at www.qmail.org > If you're talking about some wacko program that can > _export_ qmail's > inode-encoded spool contents so that a backup or > copying program can get > at them, then that's half a loaf, nopes I > finally escaped > having to administer the damned thing professionally > in late 1999. > Hated it. oh then thats your problem i'd been administering your so called damned thing professionally since l997 and i loved it. ( that doesn't mean anything really no one is wrong here, you are entitled to use what ever you want ) > > let us just clear this thing up, most people think > that you _can't_ > > modify qmail's source which is wrong. [...] > > But I _don't_ think that. Nor did I say so. but this was not for you, ( and that's a good thing cause i know you know more ) this is to inform those people who will read your post, for your information there was a post in this list saying you can't modify qmail. > > And what I said before _is_ precisely (and > concisely) the issue. What > you're bringing up is a tiresome, time-wasting red > herring. and yes it's tiresome, time-wasting redherring > He forbids distributing modified qmail under _any_ > name without special > permission. thanks for correcting me on that. > > And, absent some new permissions grant by Dan > Bernstein or a successor > copyright holder (e.g., an heir), it's _exactly_ the > dilemma that the > entire qmail and djbdns user communities will find > themselves in, some > day. Avoiding such situations, and favouring the > right to fork as a > general remedy, is the main (pragmatic) advantage of > open source. i agree on this, no explanation needed, but im being positive and hopefully things will change in the future. Dek likot at yahoo dot com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fully Searchable Archives With Friendly Web Interface at http://marc.free.net.ph To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
