Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> This entire thread has been rather disheartening.

Agreed -- but I think it's due to a lack of communication on everyone's
part, not malice.  At least in most cases.

> He's got a qmail problem that he's trying to resolve--as a service to
> the users of his utility--and we should be *helping* him, not telling
> him there's no problem.

I don't think it was quite this bad.  He described his problem, and it
was agreed that qmail would require a patch to give him the cleanest
possible solution.  He then said that patching qmail was not an option
to solve his problem.

The discussion then refocused on various degrees of ad hackery to work
around the problem -- parsing virtualdomains, having a .cdb or other
preparsed form of virtualdomains to do prepend lookups in, etc.

How else should we have handled this, I wonder?

Charles
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon                            <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to