At 14.14 15/01/2007, you wrote:
People has not the courage to say that Bernstein design and coding
is horrible.
???
QMAIL was a secure product and a good academic programming model,
ten years ago. Now, a modern MTA facing millions of emails has
completely different problems from the ones Bernstein faced. But he
made a closed architecture, not a modular one, adding a no-sense license.
Hmm...qmail is STILL a secure and a good programming model. I don't
see how it has become unsecure.
I said "it was" because at that time it was the unique one to be so
safe. Now that other products give good security, the lack of
features outperforms the need of security.
Anyway, programming model is horrible, despite of other considerations.
Perhaps you can enlighten us on that. As for programming model, I
don't see a problem. The only problem I see is the lack of certain
capabilities and qmail's current architecture. Actually, not a
problem with the design of the architecture but the state of it.
postfix uses the same architecture with certain improvements like
persistent daemons in the manner of httpd and a more advanced queue
manager. If postfix had dot-qmail support, it would become rather complete.
You call that "same architecture"?
QMAIL has a lot of problems; the mail world has changed but QMAIL
is designed to be impossible to change because of the presunction
of Bernstein of being a perfect designer.
qmail does not have a lot of problems. Quite bug free and secure :D.
DJB is a perfect designer. The fact that Wietse uses the same basic
design speaks for itself. We are only complaining that he has
stopped and not continued.
If the architecture cannot grow, designer wasn't that good.
QMAIL is no more mantained because Bernstein is prisoner of his
wrong architecture. He cannot improve it, because he should change
all the architecture, and none would follow him today on the same
licensing scheme.
I am sorry but I really doubt you can do any better. Do you plan to
show us by writing your own MTA?
I've not fear of that. I'll have spare time (I have to work, I'm not
that rich) I will do.
ROTFL. When you manage a software project that has as clean a record
as qmail with respects to bugs, come back and let us know.
Are you speaking of Open Source or professional projects? I can tell
you about projects I worked on: transactional systems, telex
switching systems, and so on. Millions/hundreds thousand lines of
code, zero final bug (and very few during development) because of a
very good design of systems.
Bug free does not mean anything, when software is hard to change and
makes easy to add new errors.
And difficult code does not mean good code, as in this case.
Not even postfix can claim anything near qmail's record.
Postfix takes the risk to grow, while qmail is perfect (according to
you) and dead.
Regards,
Tonino
Just my 1 eurocent.
Soon I will have my 1 plastic HK Dollar.
