On Fri, 01, Apr, 2011 at 01:17:52PM +0100, Mark Hymers spoke thus..
I've just checked the packages, and given the constraints of #510415, I
have accepted netqmail, dot-forward, fastforward, qmail-run and
qmail-tools. I will shortly be filing RC bugs against each of these as
per #510415 to
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 08:15:09AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Gerrit Pape wrote:
Hi, packages are in NEW since more than one year without any comments
from ftpmasters. I don't think that's standard NEW processing for
licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Gerrit Pape wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 02:34:16PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009, Andreas Barth wrote:
34215
With 4 people ranking 3 first, and Steve ranking it second, I believe
the outcome is no longer in doubt, and so the CTTE has resolved
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 08:32:11PM +, Gerrit Pape wrote:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 08:32:20AM +, Gerrit Pape wrote:
(3) I was of the opinion that a dependency chain to a packages that
provides the newliases program is enough to conform with the Debian
policy, and, since Recommends are
Gerrit Pape p...@dbnbgs.smarden.org writes:
Hi, I'm not sure I'm reading policy correctly. Is it okay to provide
such a newaliases program
#!/bin/sh
cat 2 EOT
qmail on Debian by default doesn't support the /etc/aliases database,
but handles mail aliases differently, please see
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 09:00:47PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
I'm calling for a vote on the following options[1]:
| 1. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special
| preconditions. Ftpmaster should perform standard NEW processing for
| licensing, copyright, and general
* Aníbal Monsalve Salazar (ani...@debian.org) [090829 12:39]:
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 11:46:05AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
[...]
I think it's clear that option 3 wins.
Your message wasn't signed.
Where does the constitution require this? It also isn't required at
all that somebody does
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 11:46:05AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
[...]
I think it's clear that option 3 wins.
Your message wasn't signed.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
* Steve Langasek:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 08:32:20AM +, Gerrit Pape wrote:
2.1 I'd suggest not to change that, it's a good compromise between
performance and reliability.
2.1. Bounce message contents are not crash-proof.
Qmail does not value the contents of a bounce message. Dan
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 21:00 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
I'm calling for a vote on the following options[1]:
| 1. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special
| preconditions. Ftpmaster should perform standard NEW processing for
| licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 08:40:08PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 08:32:20AM +, Gerrit Pape wrote:
2.1 I'd suggest not to change that, it's a good compromise between
performance and reliability.
2.1. Bounce message contents are not crash-proof.
Qmail
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 09:18:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Well, that's a specification for multipart/report, which qmail doesn't
attempt to comply with. (Neither do many other MTAs, although more do
now than used to.)
At a basic SMTP protocol
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 11:45:18AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
I am concerned that this has gone to a vote without any actual
answers to the questions posed in
20090812062208.gf9...@rzlab.ucr.edu.
I interpreted Andi's response as one answer, and
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 06:06:53PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Steve == Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
Steve Qmail does not value the contents of a bounce
Steve message. Dan documents this in a subordinate clause of his
Steve qmail reliability FAQ. That means: if your
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
This says that:
The third component of the multipart/report consists of the original
message or some portion thereof. When the value of the RET parameter
is FULL, the full message SHOULD be returned for any DSN which
conveys notification
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 08:05:50PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
b. There are lots of issues why qmail doesn't look too competitive,
like the static user ids,
I don't see any other mention of static user ids in this discussion. Can
you explain what the problem is there? Are these static IDs
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 06:46:31AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
We have experimental, though there is nothing in effect that prevents a
maintainer to upload experimental packages to unstable atm...
Packages only in experimental are ignored by Release and Security, so that
would address part
* Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [090823 11:32]:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 08:05:50PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
b. There are lots of issues why qmail doesn't look too competitive,
like the static user ids,
I don't see any other mention of static user ids in this discussion. Can
you
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 02:32:36AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 08:05:50PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
ignorance of rfc 3464
This is one that I would like to see more discussion about; I've definitely
found qmail's non-standard DSNs irksome, looking like
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
I am concerned that this has gone to a vote without any actual
answers to the questions posed in
20090812062208.gf9...@rzlab.ucr.edu.
I interpreted Andi's response as one answer, and the lack of any
additional messages as an indication that there
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 02:22:32AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Certainly, I see a number of issues on
http://home.pages.de/~mandree/qmail-bugs.html that I would not like to see
in any package in the archive, not just the delayed-reject bug, and I would
like to know from Gerrit which of the
Steve == Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
Steve Qmail does not value the contents of a bounce
Steve message. Dan documents this in a subordinate clause of his
Steve qmail reliability FAQ. That means: if your qmail is
Steve bouncing mail and at the same time, your system
Sam == Sam Hartman hartm...@debian.org writes:
Steve == Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
Steve Qmail does not value the contents of a bounce message. Dan
Steve documents this in a subordinate clause of his qmail
Steve reliability FAQ. That means: if your qmail is bouncing
I'm calling for a vote on the following options[1]:
| 1. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special
| preconditions. Ftpmaster should perform standard NEW processing for
| licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues as normal.
|
| Qmail is subject to the normal removal
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
I'm calling for a vote on the following options[1]:
| 1. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special
| preconditions. Ftpmaster should perform standard NEW processing for
| licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues as normal.
|
|
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
I'm calling for a vote on the following options[1]:
| 1. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special
| preconditions. Ftpmaster should perform standard NEW processing for
| licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues as normal.
|
On Thu, Aug 20 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
I'm calling for a vote on the following options[1]:
| 1. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special
| preconditions. Ftpmaster should perform standard NEW processing for
| licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues as normal.
|
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Andreas Barth wrote:
I think it would be good to get rid of at least the does delayed
bounces before upload.
Ok.
For all the other issues, RC bugs are an option.
Right.
I also think that even in case we decide to allow qmail in that
still gives the ftp-team the chance
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [090811 23:04]:
1. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special
preconditions. Ftpmaster should perform standard NEW processing for
licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues as normal.
As of
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
Would it be enough for these issues to be filed as RC bugs and the
package be allowed into unstable, or is there a set of issues that
need to be fixed before this happens? [If there is a set, what is it?]
I'm fine with specifically spelling out the
* Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [090811 23:04]:
1. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special
preconditions. Ftpmaster should perform standard NEW processing for
licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues as normal.
As of now, qmail should definitly not be allowed into
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Andreas Barth wrote:
So, I can see three different ways to continue. In any case a. and c.
should be fixed if the package is allowed into Debian.
1. Allow qmail to go into Debian (including squeeze).
2. Allow qmail into Debian unstable, but prevent it (at least for
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [090726 00:50]:
I do think that accept and bounce these days is a show-stopper, but with
that fixed, I have a hard time seeing the other issues as show-stoppers.
I do think that the newaliases integration should be fixed so that Policy
aliases handling works,
Hi,
trying to summarize the discussion, there are a few technical issues:
a. By far most important is the topic of delayed bounces. Gerit
offered to change the default to not produce them.
b. There are lots of issues why qmail doesn't look too competitive,
like the static user ids, ignorance
Hi,
Gerrit Page has been trying to add a qmail package, for a long time!
http://smarden.org/pape/Debian/sid.html
What's the problem?
I have been using qmail with Debian for years, it is the only MTA
to offer me the security, performance and flexibility that I need.
I want to add my name to
Peter Madams pe...@madams.com writes:
Gerrit Page has been trying to add a qmail package, for a long time!
http://smarden.org/pape/Debian/sid.html
What's the problem?
http://bugs.debian.org/510415 documents the problems at some length. I
don't think everyone agrees about the problems or the
]] Russ Allbery
| - Mailing list software fails to parse the error message
|
| This is a more serious problem. Mailman, for example, can't handle qmail
| bounce messages very well. I don't think it, by itself, would be
| sufficiently severe to keep it out of the archive, but it's troubling
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
| This is a more serious problem. Mailman, for example, can't handle qmail
| bounce messages very well. I don't think it, by itself, would be
| sufficiently severe to keep it out of the archive, but it's troubling in
| combination with other issues.
* Russ Allbery [Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:02:21 -0800]:
This is trivial to work around -- use VERP and you never have to parse a
bounce again.
It's a great workaround for small lists and not so great for large
lists with lots of recipients at the same destination server.
AFAIK the Debian lists
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes:
* Russ Allbery [Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:02:21 -0800]:
It's a great workaround for small lists and not so great for large
lists with lots of recipients at the same destination server.
AFAIK the Debian lists use VERP, and they are, erm, not that small.
]] Russ Allbery
| One of the problems with Mailman for large installations like ours (over
| 20,000 mailing lists, many archived, many with very large messages with
| attachments, some with huge numbers of subscribers) is that it's hard to
| cluster multiple systems in Mailman. Too much of the
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 12:38:11AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Joerg Jaspert writes (Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in
Debian):
Criteria that speak against inclusion:
- no real upstream
What is required is that _someone_ is able and prepared to act as
upstream. Is Gerrit
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 04:35:59PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
There are three possibilities here:
1) The ftp team have a duty to judge whether a NEW package is too buggy to
be
allowed into the archive.
2) The ftp team may exclude NEW packages from the archive that they believe
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
Whoever takes the decision, we still need an agreed upon definition of
crap, otherwise people will be unhappy to not be able to maintain the
piece of software they care about. Even if that software is crap.
Do the definitions of grave and
Kalle Kivimaa kil...@debian.org writes:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
Can you expand here on the consequences of ignoring RFC1894? I'm aware
that qmail delivery failure mails look different (and, I might argue,
gratuitously so) than those of other mail systems, but does this cause
* Kalle Kivimaa:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
Can you expand here on the consequences of ignoring RFC1894? I'm aware that
qmail delivery failure mails look different (and, I might argue,
gratuitously so) than those of other mail systems, but does this cause
interoperability
Hi,
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm with Steve on this. I think the ftp team review is valuable, and as a
project it takes us much more effort to deal with critically buggy
packages after they're in the archive than before they get there.
All of the teams who have to deal with
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm with Steve on this. I think the ftp team review is valuable, and as a
project it takes us much more effort to deal with critically buggy
packages after they're in the archive than before they get there.
All of the
important to support the ftpmasters'
discretion so I'm going to carry on and discuss it a bit ...)
Raphael Hertzog writes (Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in
Debian):
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009, Ian Jackson wrote:
I'm not uneasy with this at all. The ftpmasters' job
On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 09:33 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
That's granted, but then it's irrelevant to my point. The job of the
ftpmasters is mainly:
- verifying licenses for DFSG compliance
- maintaining the archive
It has never been a primary task for them to check the quality of software
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 09:33:50AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
We all know how NEW processing regularly result in complaints. Trying to
enhance the policy to be more fair could help. IMO the quality issues that
are not covered by an explicit policy point should result in bugs being
filed and
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Well, I personally am against the Qmail in Debian at it's current
state because I consider it to have at least one critical security
bug and several other RC bugs, and I don't see how to solve the
critical bug without a serious rewrite.
I agree that
Raphael Hertzog writes (Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in
Debian):
I'm particularly uneasy with letting the ftpmasters decide
what's acceptable in the Debian archive on some non-usual policy
requirements that can be difficult to justify.
I'm not uneasy with this at all
Joerg Jaspert writes (Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in
Debian):
Criteria that speak against inclusion:
- no real upstream
I don't think that this is necessarily a showstopper. We have many
important packages in Debian that have defunct or completely absent
upstreams, so
Raphael Hertzog writes (Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in
Debian):
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Yet, we do see that there are people who want Qmail, and instead of
maintaining it in an own repository want it in Debian. As it is unlikely
that the positions
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Yet, we do see that there are people who want Qmail, and instead of
maintaining it in an own repository want it in Debian. As it is
unlikely that the positions of the Qmail supporters and us will
change soon to let us find a solution that works for
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
Would
1) an upload to experimental with
2) all of the issues that have been identified as RC filed as RC
bugs against the package with
3) acceptance into sid occuring only when the RC bugs which have
a serious
(or misbehaviours, some might consider them features) and as such, in
our opinion, falls into the category of so buggy that it is not
supportable, which is not for Debian main (Policy 2.2.1). Also, afawk,
there is no real current Upstream.
It's the first time I hear that the ftpteam has used
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
All those are good reasons to not choose the software as a user but not to
not include them in Debian. We don't know how our users are going to use
it and there might be use cases where those shortcomings are not
problematic.
I think the more
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
- several shortcomings related to the MTA behaviour, including the
backscatter spam issue, failing to use secondary MXs, ignoring
RFC1894, and unbundling of outgoing messages (yay for traffic/resource
Package: tech-ctte
Severity: normal
Dear Technical committee,
the ftpteam has been thinking about the inclusion of QMail into Debian
for some time already. We feel that qmail, unless heavily patched, is
not a suitable MTA at this time and age. It is plagued by numerous bugs
(or misbehaviours,
61 matches
Mail list logo
