"Keith Warno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The continued discussions about the "love bug" and qmail "hacks" for dealing
>with it have me disturbed. I won't knock djb; the man needs to write an OS
>one of these days. :) However there should be no need to "hack" qmail to
>get it to filter unwanted mail and I'm wondering if future versions of qmail
>will care.
I'll be suprised if the next version of qmail doesn't have better
support for filtering/processing messages. DJB is good at addressing
users needs in subsequent releases. Look at the development of
DNScache or the early qmail days for two examples.
>Dave Sill's "general approach" for filtering is, well... I couldn't help but
>crack up when I read it [01]. This is by no means intended to be offensive;
>it's just funny to read that a *possible* solution for getting qmail to do
>what I want is to install it twice.
Well, I always try to entertain, as well as inform. :-)
The [01] method is crude, but quite flexible and powerful--and
requires no modification to the source code.
>Maybe windoze will do what I want if I install it twice eh? ermm.. no, been
>there, done that.
More of a good thing is sometimes better, but more of a bad thing...?
>CERT also talked about filters for sendmail, postfix, and procmail [02]. No
>mention of qmail.
Probably because the "vendors" submitted that information, but DJB
didn't.
-Dave
