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.

I do not see how that makes it a 'was secure'. Even you make the point that its problem is the lack of features and not that it has somehow become insecure. Features is not the same as security.

Anyway, programming model is horrible, despite of other considerations.

You have not made any qualifying statements on this other than your insistence on your opinion. Saying the programming model is horrible does not make it so. I have pointed out that the code is readable. Let me explain that a bit more. The flow is readily discernible and I doubt that is a mark of a poor programming model.

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"?

I don't see why not. One can always swap out the tcpserver and qmail-smtpd combination with something else similar to postfix's master + smtpd combination. So it becomes a matter of the components. If that does not show that it is the same architecture then I do not know what you mean by architecture. One can do the same for qmail-send qmail-lspawn qmail-rspawn qmail-local qmail-remote.

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.

Bah! You claim that the architecture cannot grow. I call nonsense on your assertion. postfix uses the same basic design, the difference only being the components and postfix has demonstrated quite clearly that the design is good and efficient one. Just because qmail's components are lacking in certain behaviours and features does not mean that the architecture design was bad.

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.

Funny that. DJB too had to work when he wrote qmail and I believe he is still working.

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.

Great. I await your qmail replacement.

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.

You find qmail code to be difficult? Now that is a laugh...I find it rather readable compared to other stuff I have looked at.

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.

Since when did I say it was perfect. I have quite clearly pointed out that I am complaining of DJB's lack of continued development of qmail. I have gone so far as to advocate postfix in replacement of qmail in a wide variety of environments but not a lot on this list. You however have called to question not its lack of features/development of features but its architecture and programming model without any case for such criticisms other than your opinion.

Reply via email to