Please enlighten me: who bullshitted you Americans into believing
that one needs a license to use software?
Since you asked, that would be MAI Systems Corporation in 1993, in a
lawsuit against Peak Computer, Inc.. See
Allowing patches is necessary, but it's not sufficient. Debian's
Free Software Guidelines has a similar clause, and I see no other
clause that DJB's licence conflicts with. If I go by your statement,
why is qmail listed under the non-free section?
Ability to distribute binaries built from
It is DJB's view that all directory operations (creating, removing,
linking, etc.) sould be synchronous, just like BSD does.
For the record, FFS with soft-updates does not guarantee synchronous
directory operations; you have to open and fsync() the file you just
moved to be sure the operation
Apologies for not catching this in my first reply to Bruce's message.
There is also the discussion of ordered meta-data updates (OMDU) vs
unordered (UMDU). Linux (with the exception of newer journalled
file systems) does UMDU. With OMDU, the file meta-data (inode,
indirect blocks, etc) is
For the record, FFS with soft-updates does not guarantee synchronous
directory operations; you have to open and fsync() the file you just
moved to be sure the operation has been committed to disk. See
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2000/06/19/0011.html for a
little more
ORBS also lists tarpitting people, although as spam relays they are
unsusable, too.
Anybody clueful enough to do tarpitting should block relaying.
There exists sites which do not have a nice block of IP addresses
which describe all of their valid mail relay users. For such sites,
tarpitting
Yup. The problem with bare linefeeds is simple: their
interpretation is ambiguous on a Unix machine.
This is an oversimplification. Unix machines are perfectly capable of
interpreting bare LFs in whatever way the spec might say they should.
There is a practical problem because MTA and MUA
Dan wrote, in 1996:
``In case anyone's curious: I use void main() because it shuts gcc
up.
Of course, a modern version of gcc (I just tested 2.8.1) will warn
about "void main()" even if you don't give it warning flags. (I asked
for this to be the case, back in 1996 when Dan said that; I can't
So, since you think you can do better, what would you do
differently? Split the page up? That would waste people's time.
Add more information? I'm fine with that -- "send code", as they
say.
There's always the approach of "one big page with an index at the top
where the index links point
the daemontools binaries are included, they are, like all DJB
software other than Qmail itself, under PD (not GPL).
Public domain would mean you can do anything you want with it. You
can't; in particular, you are not allowed to distribute derivative
works other than precompiled var-qmail
For *qmail*. See the Subject of this message.
Yeah, sorry about that.
Some of the reasoning in my message remains valid (lack of a license
is not an indication of public domain status), but of course the
specific facts were irrelevant.
Dan's anonftpd chroots itself, and there's no way out. Crackers
simply cannot break authentication because there *is* no
authentication. Anybody can download only the files in the ftpd
directory. Anything else is less secure.
But giving Dan's anonftpd the binary label "secure" and
Mark Delany [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Possibly. What do you propose? The current method guarantees a
unique file name first time, every time. Since it's needed for every
new mail, you want it to be efficient, right?
Not a very good argument. If some other technique gets a unique
filename the
13 matches
Mail list logo
