Joe Kelsey wrote:
> > If a major point of
> > Qmail's existence is to provide reliable E-mail delivery, then this
> > _must_ include cooperating with other MTAs (without violating
> > standards) at least enough to keep from crashing / giving them
> > headaches so that we don't 'encourage' them to lose mail ... (through
> > failures of their own).
>
> You *REALLY* don't understand the point of Qmail. Qmail is designed to
> be standards compliant, fast, reliable and secure. Your belief seems to
> be that the designer of Qmail only cared about reliability. That is
> demonstrably false, by DJB's own admission.
I didn't say it was "just" reliability ... I've quoted myself above, but
that isn't good enough, so I'll say it again, "major point .... provide
reliable E-mail delivery". I was commenting on trade-offs between speed and
reliability. Helping to keep other MTAs from crashing is to help
reliability with a potential speed trade-off.
> Nothing in the design or implementation of Qmail was there ever
> consideration given to causing or preventing broken implementations of
> SMTP from crashing.
I realise that -- that's why I mentionned it.
> Now you have gone and changed the subject to secure e-mail. There is no
> such thing in the defined SMTP protocol. Security is an add-on and has
> nothing to do with Qmail.
Security has many definitions. Come back later when you can interpret a
topic outside your preconceptions.
