This one time, at band camp, Jeremy Kitchen wrote: > On Wednesday 19 October 2005 08:27 am, Scott Ryan wrote: > > This one time, at band camp, Richard Lyons wrote: > > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, Scott Ryan wrote: > > > > The MDA is not the problem. Like I said, it does not need to adhere to > > > > any RFCs regarding UIDL. It is the pop3 server's responsibility to > > > > ensure that the UIDL is not over 70chars. > > > > > > The server runs the software that provides the service. The > > > service is the result of multiple pieces of sofware. The > > > arbitrary server-determined string is created by one piece, > > > the MDA. Another, qmail-pop3d, presents the arbitrary > > > server-determined string in response to the UIDL command. > > > > > > You could create another arbitrary server-determined string > > > specific to qmail-pop3d, but why bother? If the part of > > > the server responsible for creating the UIDL is broken, fix > > > it. > > > > The MDA does not create the UIDL, it creates the filename. > > Is that so hard to understand? > > The pop3 server uses that filename to determine the UIDL without doing any > > checking for RFC compliance. > > under the maildir spec, the filename IS the UIDL. is that so hard to > understand? > > the MDA is at fault, plain and simple. > > > My point is, where to log a bug? Nowhere on DJB's site to log bugs... > > email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Looks like another hack+patch for qmail while everyone keeps bleating that > > there are no bugs... > > don't like qmail, don't use it, it's that simple.
That is defininetly not the case, I think that qmail is excellent. I have quite a complex qmail-ldap setup and honestly think that there is no other MTA that can give me what I need from an MTA. My issue is with the qmail users that refuse to accept that there could be the possibilty of bugs in qmail. I suppose it is relative to how you perceive what a bug is. I honestly think that the errno patches, for example, are bugs because the vast majority of users have to apply these patches, regardless of where the real issue lies. I know that most of the patches are feature enhancements and that can too be argued that those requirements are out of the scope of qmail. Which is fair enough, but why not accept some of these features into the qmail core? And give you an option in the *-conf files to enable them or not. Seven years ago, Spam was maybe not such a big concern, but trust me - Today - spam is a massive problem for 99% of all mail administrators. I have to say, that some of the patches - RCPTCHECK, QMAILQUEUE have literally saved us millions. That is one example. I take my hat off to the people who have created these patches, because they really have done me and probably a few others a massive favour. My concern is and should be of those of everyone that uses qmail. Real bugs, the UIDL issue is in my opinion, a real bug - maybe due to the fact the RFC has been modified since qmail was written 7 years ago, but still... a necessary update to the core application. If real bugs / required updates are necessary, it is up to the users using the application to fix it themselves. That is all good and well, but with the license issue, it leaves you with no proper update of the core application, thus in my opinion, a poorly maintained application and anyone that thinks otherwise must have rocks in their head. I know that there are highly skilled people doing excellent jobs in maintaining the patches - netqmail and qmail-ldap are a few. But should it be their job to do this? And is it fair that the lack of recognition by the application author, by the complete failure to accept "bug fixes". These people should be rewarded with the work they do, and allow them to develop the application further to meet today's MTA requirements in my humble opinion. Please dont get me wrong, I think that DJB is clearly a genius, but his lack of commitment either shows disrespect for the talented individuals who have the skills to maintain such a well written application, or disregard for the application that he wrote 7 years ago - With all due respect. But anyway, we could go round in circles and argue this till the cows come home. Our 'work around' with the UIDL issue is to replicate the issue with Courier's pop3 server and get them to put a fix into Maildrop. Its not the best, but at least someone may look at it. I dont want to start a war over this, and yes I know - if I dont like it, dont use .... Its just a pity that that statement seams to be very quickly fired back, when people do have legitimate reasons to debate these same/similar issues. Regards, > > -Jeremy > > -- > Jeremy Kitchen ++ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > In the beginning was The Word and The Word was Content-type: text/plain > -- The Word of Bob. -- slr, ISP Systems Specialist Telkom Internet #qmail-ldap @ irc.freenode.net This message has been made from 100% recycled bits. ----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GIT/MU/E d? s+:+ a- C++++>+++++ USL++++$ P++++ !E(---)W+@ !N o?(--) K? !w(---) O- M+ V PS+@ PE Y-- PGP++>+++ !t(---) !5 !X R-- !tv b(++) DI++ !D(----) G+++>++++ e++>* h----(*) r+++ y++++ -----END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
pgpIUHZkIieyR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
