At 00:54 27/01/99 +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>That'll take the fire out of most discussions. Stuff like that works for
>lists like BUGTRAQ, where stuff is usually either true or untrue. But
>on this list, things are really _discussed_. Take for example the spam
>thread. Or the RedHat thread. I LOVED those threads.
>
>No, it wouldn't work. Usually. When somebody has a concrete problem, yes,
>it might work. But when really discussing stuff, no. So, don't make this
>thing moderated.
Absolutely spot on, however, there are a lot of common problems,
misconceptions, and errors that people make that are not covered on the
FAQ, or on the www.qmail.org page.
The www.qmail.org page is just too large as one single page. It needs to be
broken up into sections, and possibly those sections into sections. Russ
HAS done a good job on it, but it's sort of swelled a bit. Too much
information on one page tends to boggle people more than help them. Mebbe a
section that describes some of the more common things, like ETRN, and then
points you at the appropiate page to find out how to implement it, or
alternatively, do the same thing a different way (AutoTURN), making the
whole thing a learning resource.
We also need to suppliment the FAQ, as while it's good, it does lack a few
things. Pointing out how to use tcpserver instead of inetd (and mentioning
that tcpserver is better for this case) for qmail and it's associated utils
is great, but a lot of people will use other utilities, and details on how
to do it should be kept somewhere.
Mebbe a CGI script where a few maintainers can quickly add things to a
central resource? Certinaly make updating the FAQ et al much easier having
that information on hand at a later date.
Anyway, enuff of my clap-trap. Time for someone else to comment.
Stuart Young - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(aka Cefiar) - http://amarok.glasswings.com.au/
[All opinions expressed in the above message are my]
[own and not necessarily the views of my employer..]
