On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 10:51:52PM +0800, Feizhou wrote:
> >You might not be about this particular problem, but it *should* make you
> >worried about the state of qmail in general -- unmaintained by the one
> >person who can do anything about it, and legally unmaintainable by anyone
> >else.
> what is wrong with qmail? There is also netqmail if you want something
> maintained.
This is too off-topic to get into. For the purposes of CentOS, it's not open
source, and therefore not really interesting to the project -- good or
badness or other problems aside.
> >>idiot postfix poster. There was hardly anything nervous on the list.
> >Well, depends if you call ad hominem attacks and a quick "discount-first,
> >think-later" response as nervous. I might.
> Since when did Leonard Budney come to represent the entire qmail list
> members? This guy was rabid all the way to the end too.
"idiot postfix poster"?
> >This is *exactly* the point -- except it applies to the whole project, not
> >just the documentation.
> Many people do not share your view. They find qmail as it is perfectly
> acceptable. That includes large ISPs.
*shrug* They'll learn.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
Current office temperature: 78 degrees Fahrenheit.
