On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 02:46:14PM -0600, Tim wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 04:31:00PM +0000, Brian Candler wrote: > > vpopmail is a fragile and buggy application. Until recently, if you tried to > > perform two successive authentications, the second authentication would fail > > if the username was shorter than the first one, because a buffer was not > > being cleared. > > Please do not spread such misinformation. I fixed that bug on > 03/25/02 and it was released as part of 5.3.4 and all subsequent > versions.
OK, then it was not fixed in any *stable/production* version. If I understand rightly, 5.3.x is tagged as a "development" branch. There have been many people saying "I'm running vpopmail 5.2.1 and I'm seeing this bug...", and I'm pretty sure 5.2.2 was released only recently. > I agree that vpopmail needs work, but there has been tremendous > improvements in both features and stability especially since the > project moved to SourceForge. I'm glad to hear it, as hopefully it will reduce noise here. Just to recap the start of this thread: - someone reported a bug (the file 'sqwebmail-ip' becoming owned by root rather than the mailbox owner) - Sam said that only vpopmail people reported this bug, so it's almost certainly a vpopmail problem - someone rushed to the defence of vpopmail, saying that it's fine and sqwebmail-ip is nothing to do with vpopmail anyway - Sam and I pointed out a simple mechanism by which vpopmail may be broken and cause the problem seen - further defence of vpopmail, saying that it works OK in qmail-pop3d and bincimap Ill-considered argument just annoys me. My annoyance was meant to be directed at those people making those ill-considered arguments, not at the authors of vpopmail, and I'm sorry if I caused any offence. Regards, Brian.
