Chris Garrigues wrote:
"Upgrade" suggests adding features, rather more than "patch" does;
patches are often released to fix bugs.
How about "addition" or "extension"?
we need something that vaguely impugns the patch, without implying
that the patch is required, and we wish to keep
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Dave Sill wrote:
DJB has very clearly expressed disdain for
My question - should we not to wait for a DJB own opinion.
This same, it seems my, were well to avoid a discusion behind
his back.
Piotr
---
Piotr Kasztelowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Piotr Kasztelowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Dave Sill wrote:
DJB has very clearly expressed disdain for
My question - should we not to wait for a DJB own opinion.
Er, what do you think "DJB has very clearly expressed disdain" means?
See:
Hello
Er, he's subscribed to this list. In what way is this discussion
behind his back?
Ok, It's true (but very rare writes to the list :-)
Piotr
---
Piotr Kasztelowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[http://www.am.torun.pl/~pekasz]
Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I see exactly two patches which could be part of stock qmail: the AOL dns
patch
More likely, qmail will be updated to use the djbdns client library.
AIUI, this would solve the 512-byte-response problem.
paul
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 02:08:09PM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote:
Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I see exactly two patches which could be part of stock qmail: the AOL dns
patch
More likely, qmail will be updated to use the djbdns client library.
AIUI, this would solve the
Peter Cavender writes:
Laurence Brockman writes:
I'm going to jump into the discussion here and ask why we don't do something
like perl has done with cpan? They don't call them patches, or upgrades, or
anything else. They call them Modules and have a central repository that
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
Nobody patches the source of perl -- they just go to the published
APIs and add things. So why are we patching qmail instead of writing
replacements?
Nice comparison...of pines and apples. Adding badrcptto (btw: this is a
very useful thing) or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for updating qmail, I would be all for a new version of qmail with some
of the more useful (nearly mandatory) plugins already added. A couple I can
think of is the oversize DNS packet patch for qmail,
Nowhere near mandatory.
and possibly
qmail-scanner ( with the
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 07:48:05PM -0500, Aaron Carr wrote:
As for updating qmail, I would be all for a new version of qmail with some
of the more useful (nearly mandatory) plugins already added. A couple I can
think of is the oversize DNS packet patch for qmail, and possibly
qmail-scanner (
Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see exactly two patches which could be part of stock qmail: the AOL dns
patch and Russels qmtp/mxps-patch for qmail-remote.
Forget about the DNS mods, DJB has very clearly expressed disdain for
them. I'd vote for the MXPS and bigconcurrency mods.
-Dave
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 09:02:38AM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
and possibly
qmail-scanner ( with the option to disable it if not needed). After last
nights virus fiasco on this list, is there anyone who doesn't think it might
be a welcome addition to a standard qmail install? : )
Yep: me.
At 23:46 15.1.2001 +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 03:18:10PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
I'm considering removing the entire patches section from
www.qmail.org.
Why? Because a patch implies that something is wrong, and needs to be
fixed. However, when someone
Thus spake Piotr Kasztelowicz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
If you want to use bloated, unreliable, immensely fat software with a
Where I have written, that EACH patch? Only USEFUL patch.
The world goes forward!
There is no objective measure for the usefulness of a patch.
Thus, there will be endless
Thus spake Kris Kelley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
If you want to use bloated, unreliable, immensely fat software with a
nice author who will include every patch anyone sends him, switch to
Exim. I mean it! Please go away and use Exim. It has all the features
anyone could ever want from an
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Felix von Leitner wrote:
There is no objective measure for the usefulness of a patch.
Thus, there will be endless fruitless discussions that make everyone
feel bad ...
Lets so Dan take way of further progress of qmail himself ...:-)
Piotr
---
Piotr Kasztelowicz
To: Henning Brauer; qmail-list
Subject: Re: A firestorm of protest?
At 23:46 15.1.2001 +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 03:18:10PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
I'm considering removing the entire patches section from
www.qmail.org.
Why? Because a patch implies that something
At 07:21 PM 1/15/2001, you wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Felix von Leitner wrote:
If you want to use bloated, unreliable, immensely fat software with a
Where I have written, that EACH patch? Only USEFUL patch.
The world goes forward!
Ah...but what is useful to thee may not be useful to me :o)
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:18:10 -0500 (EST), Russell Nelson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why? Because a patch implies that something is wrong, and needs to be
fixed. However, when someone produces a "patch" for smtp-auth, that
This might be too simple, but why not call them 'modifications' or
"Chris Garrigues" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: "David Dyer-Bennet" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Upgrade" suggests adding features, rather more than "patch" does;
patches are often released to fix bugs.
How about "addition" or "extension"?
I vote for "source code plug-ins". :-)
-Dave
: I vote for "source code plug-ins". :-)
:
: -Dave
:
Service pack 0.1 Beta?
TonyCam
* Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Chris Garrigues" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: "David Dyer-Bennet" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Upgrade" suggests adding features, rather more than "patch" does;
patches are often released to fix bugs.
How about "addition" or "extension"?
I vote for "source
* Laurence Brockman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm going to jump into the discussion here and ask why we don't do
something like perl has done with cpan? They don't call them patches,
or upgrades, or anything else. They call them Modules and have a
central repository that users can go and
how about:
stuff-to-make-qmail-a-reasonable-tool-to-use-with-a-few-million-users-that-m
ay-encourage-others-to-write-stuff-that-may-introduce-security-holes-and-mak
e-the-original-author-uneasy
i'm grateful that qmail is security bug free. but i have the need to
control
the max number of
"Robin S. Socha" wrote:
* Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Chris Garrigues" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: "David Dyer-Bennet" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Upgrade" suggests adding features, rather more than "patch" does;
patches are often released to fix bugs.
How about "addition" or
"Robin S. Socha" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I vote for "source code plug-ins". :-)
Ummm... Nope.
Nope what? Nope, I don't vote for "source code plug-ins"? Or nope,
"source code plug-ins" is not a good rename for "patches"? You're
right either way--as the
+ Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| Seriously, I suggest we call them "modifications", or "mods" for
| short.
This whole discussion reminds of a Lisp story I heard many years ago.
These folks were making a software package based on Lisp. A manager
actually requested that they rename the garbage
I hate to add to the barrage of email about this, but, I feel that I must
throw in my 2 cents for the record.
My vote for the web site would be qmail-plugins or something to that effect.
It does not imply any shortcoming, defect or bug, it simply states that some
my find each particular plugin
On 17-Jan-01 at 01:05, Aaron Carr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I hate to add to the barrage of email about this, but, I feel that I must
throw in my 2 cents for the record.
My vote for the web site would be qmail-plugins or something to that
effect. It does not imply any shortcoming, defect
Thus said "Robin S. Socha" on 16 Jan 2001 20:47:55 +0100:
A module is not a patch. You can apply as many well written modules as
you like - but you cannot simply patch away at an existing code base.
Unless you write code in Lisp... :-)
Andy
--
[---[system
Laurence Brockman writes:
I'm going to jump into the discussion here and ask why we don't do something
like perl has done with cpan? They don't call them patches, or upgrades, or
anything else. They call them Modules and have a central repository that
users can go and search from. I think
Laurence Brockman writes:
I'm going to jump into the discussion here and ask why we don't do something
like perl has done with cpan? They don't call them patches, or upgrades, or
anything else. They call them Modules and have a central repository that
users can go and search from. I
Russell Nelson wrote:
I'm considering removing the entire patches section from
www.qmail.org.
Why? Because a patch implies that something is wrong, and needs to be
fixed. However, when someone produces a "patch" for smtp-auth, that
implies that qmail-smtpd has a problem that the patch
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 15 January 2001 at 15:18:10 -0500
I'm considering removing the entire patches section from
www.qmail.org.
Why? Because a patch implies that something is wrong, and needs to be
fixed. However, when someone produces a "patch" for smtp-auth,
Greg Cope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Nelson wrote:
I'm considering removing the entire patches section from
www.qmail.org.
Why? Because a patch implies that something is wrong, and needs to be
fixed.
Most people whom see patches assume in qmail's case that these are
David Dyer-Bennet writes:
I'm not going to do it unless a majority of the authors of patches are
willing to repackage them as standalone programs. So if there's a
firestorm of protest from those authors, I won't do it.
I think this is a very bad idea. My primary reason is that
Hello
Perhaps then the only change necessary is to change the semantics of the
qmail.org site? Instead of "so-and-so has written a patch to...", change
it to "addition" or "add-on" or whatever.
Qmail ver 1.03 does not already "young" software. How about to suppose
Dan to make the new
Russell Nelson wrote:
Also, some things are much better implemented as a change to
the existing programs, rather than as an additional layer of
programs.
Try applying two patches to the same program.
That's not necessarily a problem, particularly when the patches affect
different
Thus spake David Dyer-Bennet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Why? Because a patch implies that something is wrong, and needs to be
fixed. However, when someone produces a "patch" for smtp-auth, that
implies that qmail-smtpd has a problem that the patch fixes. I'd
rather see people steal the
Thus spake Piotr Kasztelowicz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Perhaps then the only change necessary is to change the semantics of the
qmail.org site? Instead of "so-and-so has written a patch to...", change
it to "addition" or "add-on" or whatever.
Qmail ver 1.03 does not already "young" software.
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Piotr Kasztelowicz wrote:
Dan to make the new version - perhaps made with cooperation with
"Dan" and "cooperate" on the same line...
all peoples, who have created useful patches and additional softwares,
useful additions becoming standard? that'll be the day.
See,
Felix von Leitner wrote:
If you want to use bloated, unreliable, immensely fat software with a
nice author who will include every patch anyone sends him, switch to
Exim. I mean it! Please go away and use Exim. It has all the features
anyone could ever want from an MTA, and around 20
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 15 January 2001 at 15:55:50 -0500
David Dyer-Bennet writes:
I'm not going to do it unless a majority of the authors of patches are
willing to repackage them as standalone programs. So if there's a
firestorm of protest from those
Piotr Kasztelowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 15 January 2001 at 22:08:50
+0100
Hello
Perhaps then the only change necessary is to change the semantics of the
qmail.org site? Instead of "so-and-so has written a patch to...", change
it to "addition" or "add-on" or whatever.
Felix von Leitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 15 January 2001 at 22:17:41 +0100
Thus spake David Dyer-Bennet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Why? Because a patch implies that something is wrong, and needs to be
fixed. However, when someone produces a "patch" for smtp-auth, that
implies
From: "David Dyer-Bennet" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:38:18 -0600 (CST)
Felix von Leitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 15 January 2001 at 22:17:41 +
0100
Thus spake David Dyer-Bennet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Why? Because a patch implies that something is wrong, and
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Try applying two patches to the same program.
While this may require some manual reconciliation between
conflicting packages, it's far better than needing a seperate full
distribution of components of qmail for every possible combination of
patches.
If Dan was putting out daily versions of qmail, sure. But we've
had qmail-1.03 for several years now.
Isn't that really the root of the problem? They aren't patches,
they're features. But for whatever reasons, the main sources are never
updated to reflect greater capabilities.
At 01:18 PM 1/15/2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
I'm considering removing the entire patches section from
www.qmail.org.
I love the patches. I like being asked to add a certain functionality
to the email server, hitting qmail.org, pressing crtl+f and finding
the way to provide that functionality to
Scott Gifford writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Try applying two patches to the same program.
While this may require some manual reconciliation between
conflicting packages, it's far better than needing a seperate full
distribution of components of qmail for
Felix von Leitner wrote:
I'd rather see www.qmail.org be changed so that you would have to click
through a banner page that clearly states that none of those patches is
necessary to make qmail any more secure, more reliable or faster.
Please don't cripple my work with qmail in the vain
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scott Gifford writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Try applying two patches to the same program.
While this may require some manual reconciliation between
conflicting packages, it's far better than needing a seperate
Hi Russ,
I'd like to add my voice to the firestorm too...
I've found a couple of places where Dan decries patches:
http://msgs.securepoint.com/cgi-bin/get/qmail9812/214/1/2/1/3/2/1/2/1.html
(which says at the end)
DJBYou are of course free to distribute patches---but you're hurting the
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 03:18:10PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
I'm considering removing the entire patches section from
www.qmail.org.
Why? Because a patch implies that something is wrong, and needs to be
fixed. However, when someone produces a "patch" for smtp-auth, that
implies that
Hello qmailers :-)
Let's just leave it as it is and if you want to call them something, then
qmail non-standard extensions.
I'm sure Dan is concerned that these extensions can introduce security
concerns, not because of your programming, but the environments they will
be working in/with.
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Felix von Leitner wrote:
If you want to use bloated, unreliable, immensely fat software with a
Where I have written, that EACH patch? Only USEFUL patch.
The world goes forward!
Piotr
---
Piotr Kasztelowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[http://www.am.torun.pl/~pekasz]
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
See, these things that are really needed to get any use out of qmail,
aren't supported... won't be supported, etc., as they make qmail less
This should be Dan's decision. I don't apply to sugest, but
I suppose there are group of Dan's friends, group
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Piotr Kasztelowicz wrote:
This should be Dan's decision. I don't apply to sugest, but
I suppose there are group of Dan's friends, group of advanced
users, who known very good qmail as well as Dan personaly.
Qmail is the best known by me MUA, so I will by happy, if
it
58 matches
Mail list logo
