Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Simon J Muddsjm...@pobox.com wrote: sjm...@pobox.com (Simon J Mudd) writes: For those interested I've updated the packages and you should be able to find: postfix-2.6.0-1.src.rpm and postfix-2.6.0-1.rhel5.x86_64.rpm Updated to 2.6.1 as I hadn't seen Wietse's 2.6.1 update. Simon Simon, Thanks for your efforts and hard work. Is the 2.6.1 RPM download still available? I can't seem to find it unless I am looking under the wrong spot. - Carlos
RE: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
For those interested I've updated the packages and you should be able to find: postfix-2.6.0-1.src.rpm and postfix-2.6.0-1.rhel5.x86_64.rpm Updated to 2.6.1 as I hadn't seen Wietse's 2.6.1 update. Thanks a bunch, Simon. --Brian
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
sjm...@pobox.com (Simon J Mudd) writes: For those interested I've updated the packages and you should be able to find: postfix-2.6.0-1.src.rpm and postfix-2.6.0-1.rhel5.x86_64.rpm Updated to 2.6.1 as I hadn't seen Wietse's 2.6.1 update. Simon
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
sjm...@pobox.com (Simon J Mudd) writes: For those interested I've updated the packages and you should be able to find: postfix-2.6.0-1.src.rpm and postfix-2.6.0-1.rhel5.x86_64.rpm Updated to 2.6.1 as I hadn't seen Wietse's 2.6.1 update. Simon Thank you Simon. Chas.
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
sjm...@pobox.com (Simon J Mudd) writes: I'll see if I can make some time to build some 2.6 rpms, but am likely to respond more if there are people who show an interest in these rpms I build. For those interested I've updated the packages and you should be able to find: postfix-2.6.0-1.src.rpm and postfix-2.6.0-1.rhel5.x86_64.rpm on my web/ftp site. Please treat them lightly, and let me know off list of any issues you find so I can address them. Also updated is the smtpd multi-line patch which can be found at: ftp://ftp.wl0.org/SOURCES/postfix-2.6.0-multiline-greeting.patch Regards, Simon
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
On Mon, May 18, 2009 14:48:12 PM -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote: I, for one, would urge the more sophisticated users, who need the latest release, to learn how to use/build source RPMs, and build the official Postfix release via source RPM that resembles the vendor's support source RPM, but uses a more recent Postfix version. just for the record: there are cases where willingness or unwillingness to learn rpm packaging is irrelevant. Like when one, for whatever reason, has no possibility to set up any extra system (including a virtual machine) where packages could be built. I won't explain it in more detail because it was already done here about one year ago, when the exact identical discussion took place. Marco -- Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you:http://digifreedom.net/node/84
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
On Mon, May 18, 2009 20:38:54 PM +0200, Simon J Mudd wrote: I'll see if I can make some time to build some 2.6 rpms, but am likely to respond more if there are people who show an interest in these rpms I build. +1 for me, thanks if you find the time! Marco -- Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you:http://digifreedom.net/node/84
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
On Mon, May 18, 2009 20:38:54 PM +0200, Simon J Mudd wrote: I'll see if I can make some time to build some 2.6 rpms, but am likely to respond more if there are people who show an interest in these rpms I build. +1 for me, thanks if you find the time! 2.7 snapshot rpms for CentOSv4 here!:) http://ramix.jp/RPM/4/postfix-2.7-snapshot/ 2.6.x for CentOSv4 here!:) http://ramix.jp/RPMS/4/postfix-2.6/ This repos was only include japanese document.:) can use repos via yum or apt. % postconf mail_version mydomain mail_version = 2.7-20090511 mydomain = ramix.jp # but not have CentOSv5 build env... -- | YOSHIMURA Keitaro/ramsy @JUSTPLAYER | ra...@ramix.jp | http://ramix.jp/~ramsy/ | http://www.justplayer.co.jp/
RE: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
I'll see if I can make some time to build some 2.6 rpms, but am likely to respond more if there are people who show an interest in these rpms I build. +1 for me as well, Simon. I appreciate your work and have used your RPMs for years to keep my mail servers and filters up to date.
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
I'll see if I can make some time to build some 2.6 rpms, but am likely to respond more if there are people who show an interest in these rpms I build. I too am interested and would like to try it. I have never used anything beyond the vendor supplied version of Postfix but am tired of waiting for Red Hat to get their packages updated. Running v2.3 is way too old for my needs. I appreciate your time and help! Wish I had the know-how on how to create them since I have the time... - Carlos
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
lis...@newnanutilities.org (Brian Collins) writes: I noticed that Postfix V#2.6.0 is now out. Does anybody know where to get RPM files? GOOGLE did not help. Simon Mudd picks up the releases and makes good source and binary RPMs from them with lots of options. However, he's a busy man and does not always get to them right after release. A kindly-worded email to him might yield you an estimate of when he'll get to 2.6. As I've said before I now have a lot less time to dedicate to Postfix than before. Also several years ago a lot of peole had an interest in the packages I provided. I think that now for many people my rpms are not needed. RedHat's rpms while not very up to date are good enough for most people. Those that need newer rpms probably rebuild the newer Fedora packages, unless they need some of the more unusual features my rpms still provide. I'll see if I can make some time to build some 2.6 rpms, but am likely to respond more if there are people who show an interest in these rpms I build. Others ask why not build from source. The simplicity of a single upgrade procedure and reproducibility make this more favourable the more boxes you have to manage. For those of us who have hundres of boxes to manage this makes life so much easier. Simon
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 08:38:54PM +0200, Simon J Mudd wrote: Others ask why not build from source. The simplicity of a single upgrade procedure and reproducibility make this more favourable the more boxes you have to manage. For those of us who have hundres of boxes to manage this makes life so much easier. My question was not why use RPMs. It was: - Why use binary RPMs that are not supported by the underlying distribution? The premise for the question was that either one wants supported binaries, in which case, one really should use what the O/S vendor supports. Or one (a more sophisticated user) wants the latest vendor unsupported release, in which case, by all means still build an RPM, but pulling down binaries, even from Simon who we all know and trust, seems risky. I, for one, would urge the more sophisticated users, who need the latest release, to learn how to use/build source RPMs, and build the official Postfix release via source RPM that resembles the vendor's support source RPM, but uses a more recent Postfix version. -- Viktor. Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below: mailto:majord...@postfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not send an it worked, thanks follow-up. If you must respond, please put It worked, thanks in the Subject so I can delete these quickly.
RE: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
I'll see if I can make some time to build some 2.6 rpms, but am likely to respond more if there are people who show an interest in these rpms I build. [DH] +1 for interest. I have begun building mail servers on multiple VPS's using CentOS and I use your RPM's all the time. I'd be very interested in 2.6 RPM's. No hurry though.
RE: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
On Tue, May 19, 2009 6:41 am, Dan Horne wrote: I'll see if I can make some time to build some 2.6 rpms, but am likely to respond more if there are people who show an interest in these rpms I build. [DH] +1 for interest. I have begun building mail servers on multiple VPS's using CentOS and I use your RPM's all the time. I'd be very interested in 2.6 RPM's. +1 for interest I use/have used your RPMs, and, built RPMs with my desired options following your instructions, many thanks again -- Voytek
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
Victor Duchovni wrote: Yes, some of the better distribution supported patches are not ill-advised. But occasionally, one gets something along the lines of the Debian OpenSSL fiasco (notably the Debian *Postfix* patches have been pretty good, and historically RedHat was adding rather questionable changes to Postfix) Sorry, I missed the background on this one-- what did RedHat do to Postfix that was questionable? -- Corey Chandler / KB1JWQ Living Legend / Systems Exorcist Today's Excuse: We are a 100% Microsoft Shop
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
MacShane, Tracy wrote: Yes, there is unfortunately such a need, because RHEL5 is only up to Postfix 2.3, and we require functionality from Postfix 2.5 and up (destination_rate_delay). This leads to an interesting question all its own: I'm running the same Postfix config I built years ago under probably 2.2 or 2.3. Is there a document somewhere or a process by which I can modernize the config? Periodically I'll be told that a line I'm using is deprecated by something newer, and I'd like to get with the times... The OS administrators do not permit GCC and devel libraries on the SMTP servers I maintain (and fair enough). Nor should they-- this is what a staging environment is for. Build it on a staging box, test the heck out of it, and then push the binaries out to the production farm. Also, installing non-RPM packages can obviously cause clashes when installing other RH updates (at least RPM is clever enough not to try installing Postfix 2.3 patches when it finds 2.5 already installed). Urm... add Postfix to your yum excludes file and the problem goes away. -- Corey Chandler / KB1JWQ Living Legend / Systems Exorcist Today's Excuse: We are a 100% Microsoft Shop
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
On Thursday, 14. Mai 2009 09:54:56 Corey Chandler wrote: MacShane, Tracy wrote: snip The OS administrators do not permit GCC and devel libraries on the SMTP servers I maintain (and fair enough). Nor should they-- this is what a staging environment is for. Build it on a staging box, test the heck out of it, and then push the binaries out to the production farm. Ehm, isn't that why you use RPM? You compile the binaries and build the package on a compatible system. With the package you have an easy way to distribute the binaries. Also, installing non-RPM packages can obviously cause clashes when installing other RH updates (at least RPM is clever enough not to try installing Postfix 2.3 patches when it finds 2.5 already installed). Urm... add Postfix to your yum excludes file and the problem goes away. Postfix provides an MTA which is a quite important part of a *nix system. To remove the MTA package from system breaks a lot of dependencies. To avoid that you install your own package. Greetings Stefan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
2009/5/14 Victor Duchovni victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com: If the purpose of using RPM files is to facilitate binary updates from distribution servers, wait until *your distribution* upgrades to a newer supported version of Postfix. If you incorporate your own Postfix into your O/S, why download some random stranger's binary RPM? Is there a real use case for binary RPMs not maintained by the distribution release engineering teams? What's wrong with the Postfix source, which is typically less likely to have ill-advised patches dropped into it? Sure; as people have already said, some vendors (cough, Redhat) don't really keep up to date. I haven't checked all their release channels on offer, but the core set of packages only includes Postfix 2.3.3. *And* it doesn't come with mysql/pgsql map support. This is when you go and get the package from the Centos-plus channel and then tell yum to ignore Redhat updates to Postfix so it doesn't clobber your working setup one day... So your real question is probably, why not just use Postfix's source?. I can only speak for myself and my employer, but we maintain a lot of diverse systems, so we're a bit allergic to non-packaged software, no matter how easy it is to maintain (I've never used non-packaged Postfix, maybe it's really easy to maintain, but that's not the point). Packaged software is basically a requirement for sysadmin sanity. We could produce packaged versions of Postfix from source and put them in our internal repo, but we just don't have the time and resources to keep on top of updates and whatnot. I suspect people want something like DAG (http://dag.wieers.com/rpm/). Unfortunately for them, they don't have Postfix because everyone's already got it, just not the cutting edge. Fedora 10 is up to Postfix 2.5.5, I figure they'll have Postfix 2.6 in the next major version release. Which is like, every fortnight, right? :) Corey: I'm running the same Postfix config I built years ago under probably 2.2 or 2.3. Is there a document somewhere or a process by which I can modernize the config? Periodically I'll be told that a line I'm using is deprecated by something newer, and I'd like to get with the times... Sure, you probably want upgrade-configuration, see `man 1 postfix`
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
On May 14, 2009, at 02:03, Victor Duchovni wrote: Is there a real use case for binary RPMs not maintained by the distribution release engineering teams? What's wrong with the Postfix source, which is typically less likely to have ill-advised patches dropped into it? A bit off topic already but some organisations find it easier to pack everything up in rpms, debs or pkgs and then deploy than compiling using two of the most common deployment methods: compile and install blindly or alternatively compile, tar it and then deploy. :) Especially on RedHat platforms deploying everything in rpm format is very convenient, makes for good bookkeeping and preserves any dependencies on other applications even across upgrades as long as you do it correctly. Kaj -- Kaj J. Niemi kaj...@basen.net FI +358 45 63 12000 KSA +966 54 52 43277 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
Hi, On May 14, 2009, at 01:07, Just E. Mail wrote: I noticed that Postfix V#2.6.0 is now out. Does anybody know where to get RPM files? GOOGLE did not help. The SRPM from Fedora should compile fine on at least EL4 and EL5. I suggest you download it and build it yourself instead of downloading blindly someone else's pre-compiled one. Kaj -- Kaj J. Niemi kaj...@basen.net FI +358 45 63 12000 KSA +966 54 52 43277 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
On May 14, 2009, at 12:25, Barney Desmond wrote: Sure; as people have already said, some vendors (cough, Redhat) don't really keep up to date. I haven't checked all their release channels on offer, but the core set of packages only includes Postfix 2.3.3. *And* it doesn't come with mysql/pgsql map support. This is when you go and get the package from the Centos-plus channel and then tell yum to ignore Redhat updates to Postfix so it doesn't clobber your working setup one day... Typically software coming from the base operating system is not always the one you want to use IF you happen to be in a very specialized environment. For most people postfix 2.3.3 with RHEL will be completely fine for the entire lifetime of that particular server and they most likely won't miss mysql or postgresql support either. ;-) With RHEL you're paying for stability and continuity over a longer time period - not for the latest and greatest snapshot with a specific feature at any point in time. :-) RHEL6, when it eventually arrives, will most likely have a later version of postfix just like RHEL5 (2.3.3) has a more recent version than RHEL4 (2.2.10). See http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/errata/ for info on the life cycle and erratas (updates). sysadmin sanity. We could produce packaged versions of Postfix from source and put them in our internal repo, but we just don't have the time and resources to keep on top of updates and whatnot. We do this and have done so for the last 8 years. Kaj -- Kaj J. Niemi kaj...@basen.net FI +358 45 63 12000 KSA +966 54 52 43277 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
I noticed that Postfix V#2.6.0 is now out. Does anybody know where to get RPM files? GOOGLE did not help. Simon Mudd picks up the releases and makes good source and binary RPMs from them with lots of options. However, he's a busy man and does not always get to them right after release. A kindly-worded email to him might yield you an estimate of when he'll get to 2.6. But certainly don't expect the big Linux package-based releases to make RPMs of their own any time soon - Red Hat 5.3 ships with 2.3. --Brian
RE: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
Is there a real use case for binary RPMs not maintained by the distribution release engineering teams? What's wrong with the Postfix source, which is typically less likely to have ill-advised patches dropped into it? Because those of us who run package-based systems find things work better when we have Postfix in a package as well. This is rarely a problem for me on CentOS/RHEL systems, because I get Simon's source, set the options I want, and compile my own. Simon does a great job of keeping his source RPMs as close to vanilla as possible, and I don't really need the latest version on most of my systems. Red Hat, on the other hand, has been known to patch Postfix to the point of frustrating admins. In addition, they are, as someone already pointed out, several revisions back. Looks like Fedora 11 is currently at 2.5, though. --Brian
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
* Brian Collins lis...@newnanutilities.org: I noticed that Postfix V#2.6.0 is now out. Does anybody know where to get RPM files? GOOGLE did not help. Simon Mudd picks up the releases and makes good source and binary RPMs from them with lots of options. However, he's a busy man and does not always get to them right after release. A kindly-worded email to him might yield you an estimate of when he'll get to 2.6. He's a bit busy right now due to family issues. -- Ralf Hildebrandt Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb und Wartung Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155 http://www.computerbeschimpfung.de It's always nice to see USA set the edgy standards. First for freedom, then for the police state.
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: * Brian Collins lis...@newnanutilities.org: I noticed that Postfix V#2.6.0 is now out. Does anybody know where to get RPM files? GOOGLE did not help. Simon Mudd picks up the releases and makes good source and binary RPMs from them with lots of options. However, he's a busy man and does not always get to them right after release. A kindly-worded email to him might yield you an estimate of when he'll get to 2.6. He's a bit busy right now due to family issues. Sorry to hear that but in the mean time you can grab .src.rpm for a prior release, the tarball for the current release and modify the .spec file to reflect this. As mentioned in an earlier message Simon's RPMs are built as simply as possible so can be handled this way. \\||/ Rod --
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
Roderick A. Anderson wrote: Sorry to hear that but in the mean time you can grab .src.rpm for a prior release, the tarball for the current release and modify the .spec file to reflect this. I've been doing this for our smtp servers for some time. The suse factory postfix srpm compiles nicely on SLES and is usually fairly current, but if need be, as mentioned above, it's not too difficult to drop in a newer tarball from postfix.org and tweak the spec file before rebuilding. Joe
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
Didn't get the message you replied to, so I'm bolting it on to yours. mouss wrote: Stefan Jakobs a écrit : On Thursday, 14. Mai 2009 09:54:56 Corey Chandler wrote: MacShane, Tracy wrote: Also, installing non-RPM packages can obviously cause clashes when installing other RH updates (at least RPM is clever enough not to try installing Postfix 2.3 patches when it finds 2.5 already installed). Urm... add Postfix to your yum excludes file and the problem goes away. Postfix provides an MTA which is a quite important part of a *nix system. To remove the MTA package from system breaks a lot of dependencies. To avoid that you install your own package. Yes, I'm aware of that. If you reread the parent's use case, they're building a custom spin of Postfix from source. Therefore, you want to ensure that postfix itself is excluded from updates so your install doesn't get overwritten by an earlier version; it doesn't usually, but I don't like to count on that. -- Corey Chandler / KB1JWQ Living Legend / Systems Exorcist Today's Excuse: We are a 100% Microsoft Shop
Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
I noticed that Postfix V#2.6.0 is now out. Does anybody know where to get RPM files? GOOGLE did not help. Jennifer
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 04:07:39PM -0600, Just E. Mail wrote: I noticed that Postfix V#2.6.0 is now out. Does anybody know where to get RPM files? GOOGLE did not help. If the purpose of using RPM files is to facilitate binary updates from distribution servers, wait until *your distribution* upgrades to a newer supported version of Postfix. If you incorporate your own Postfix into your O/S, why download some random stranger's binary RPM? Is there a real use case for binary RPMs not maintained by the distribution release engineering teams? What's wrong with the Postfix source, which is typically less likely to have ill-advised patches dropped into it? -- Viktor. Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below: mailto:majord...@postfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not send an it worked, thanks follow-up. If you must respond, please put It worked, thanks in the Subject so I can delete these quickly.
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
Victor Duchovni: On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 04:07:39PM -0600, Just E. Mail wrote: I noticed that Postfix V#2.6.0 is now out. Does anybody know where to get RPM files? GOOGLE did not help. If the purpose of using RPM files is to facilitate binary updates from distribution servers, wait until *your distribution* upgrades to a newer supported version of Postfix. If you incorporate your own Postfix into your O/S, why download some random stranger's binary RPM? Is there a real use case for binary RPMs not maintained by the distribution release engineering teams? What's wrong with the Postfix source, which is typically less likely to have ill-advised patches dropped into it? Many platform-specific features are useful, but they haven't been adopted into the official release primarily because of lack of cycles (the code needs to be tested, and I can't realistically build every release on every platform). Ideally, the official release would provide non-broken versions for these platform-specific features. Wietse
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 07:26:34PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: I noticed that Postfix V#2.6.0 is now out. Does anybody know where to get RPM files? GOOGLE did not help. If the purpose of using RPM files is to facilitate binary updates from distribution servers, wait until *your distribution* upgrades to a newer supported version of Postfix. If you incorporate your own Postfix into your O/S, why download some random stranger's binary RPM? Is there a real use case for binary RPMs not maintained by the distribution release engineering teams? What's wrong with the Postfix source, which is typically less likely to have ill-advised patches dropped into it? Many platform-specific features are useful, but they haven't been adopted into the official release primarily because of lack of cycles (the code needs to be tested, and I can't realistically build every release on every platform). Sure, this fits in under the distribution supported use-case... What puzzles me to some degree is the desire to find/install RPMs not supported by the distribution... Yes, some of the better distribution supported patches are not ill-advised. But occasionally, one gets something along the lines of the Debian OpenSSL fiasco (notably the Debian *Postfix* patches have been pretty good, and historically RedHat was adding rather questionable changes to Postfix) Fortunately, some of the more common unwise patches have been discouraged by defensive changes in the Postfix source code... -- Viktor. Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below: mailto:majord...@postfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not send an it worked, thanks follow-up. If you must respond, please put It worked, thanks in the Subject so I can delete these quickly.
RE: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
-Original Message- From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Victor Duchovni Sent: Thursday, 14 May 2009 9:04 AM To: postfix-users@postfix.org Subject: Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 04:07:39PM -0600, Just E. Mail wrote: I noticed that Postfix V#2.6.0 is now out. Does anybody know where to get RPM files? GOOGLE did not help. If the purpose of using RPM files is to facilitate binary updates from distribution servers, wait until *your distribution* upgrades to a newer supported version of Postfix. If you incorporate your own Postfix into your O/S, why download some random stranger's binary RPM? Is there a real use case for binary RPMs not maintained by the distribution release engineering teams? What's wrong with the Postfix source, which is typically less likely to have ill-advised patches dropped into it? Yes, there is unfortunately such a need, because RHEL5 is only up to Postfix 2.3, and we require functionality from Postfix 2.5 and up (destination_rate_delay). The OS administrators do not permit GCC and devel libraries on the SMTP servers I maintain (and fair enough). Also, installing non-RPM packages can obviously cause clashes when installing other RH updates (at least RPM is clever enough not to try installing Postfix 2.3 patches when it finds 2.5 already installed). It would certainly be useful if an approved distributor provided reliable and up-to-date RPM and DEB packages with a sensible set of options compiled in.
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
Victor Duchovni wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 04:07:39PM -0600, Just E. Mail wrote: I noticed that Postfix V#2.6.0 is now out. Does anybody know where to get RPM files? GOOGLE did not help. If the purpose of using RPM files is to facilitate binary updates from distribution servers, wait until *your distribution* upgrades to a newer supported version of Postfix. If you incorporate your own Postfix into your O/S, why download some random stranger's binary RPM? Is there a real use case for binary RPMs not maintained by the distribution release engineering teams? What's wrong with the Postfix source, which is typically less likely to have ill-advised patches dropped into it? Some of us are not all of us are programmers, and we do not feel comfortable or competent to do an install from source. Just my own feelings.
Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
Not only am I not competent to install Postfix, I should learn to type.
