I'm kinda tired of this thread, but...
"Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Unattributed by Sam" wrote:
> > I'm not a vendor, but if I was, I *would* jump through hoops to
> > distribute qmail. It's not "ultimate", as if that's possible, but it's
> > the best there is for the types of applications I have.
>
> And, that's why you're not a vendor. No vendor will have its hands tied
> this way.
*cough*
That's right. And PC vendors ship with Windoze, not through *any*
pressure by Microsoft, because they consider it the best...er, um,
that is, because Microsoft is so unrestrictive in its licensing....
Len.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Len Budney | Now, what were you saying about
Maya Design Group | strategies that don't scale?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Prof. Dan Bernstein
| Author of qmail
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Dave Sill
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Peter C. Norton
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Dave Sill
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Dave Sill
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Justin Bell
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Justin Bell
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Dave Sill
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Peter C. Norton
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Dave Sill
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Sam
- Re: Vendors and tied hands Len Budney
- Re: Vendors and tied hands Edward S. Marshall
- rblsmtpd error codes D. J. Bernstein
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Rask Ingemann Lambertsen
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail johnjohn
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail D. J. Bernstein
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail ddb
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Sam
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail ddb
- Example of the anti-fax effect D. J. Bernstein
- Re: Example of the anti-fax effect Sam
