Well both redhat and mandrake come with qmail RPMs on thier CDs
Now granted they don't show them during the install process, but look through
the CDs they are there. In fact you'll notice in your /etc/passwd and
/etc/groups that all the needed users and groups are already there wheter or
not you install qmail. But still I would build from source anyway as there
are some patches which are quite nice.
-Joe
On Thursday 15 August 2002 11:20 pm, you wrote:
> At 09:56 PM 8/15/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> >As for ISPs and such, I dunno. Qmail is known to be a solid,
> >well-engineered and secure product. Unfortunately, many people are
> >repelled by Dan Bernstein's attitude toward open sourcing his source
> >code. And I don't know of a single distro that provides qmail on their
> >CDs.
>
> Yes, the distro's want to change the location to their way and he won't
> allow that.
> There are unofficial RPM's but I always advise people to stay away from
> them and download and install the tar.gz's.
> Dave Sill has a great set of instructions called Life With qmail at :-
> http://www.lifewithqmail.org/
>
> Generally, the user can change the install location but Dan doesn't want
> the default to be changed wholesale by distributors.
> Also he won't support those changes because of the problems in support they
> create.
> Many on the qmail list are of the same opinion, as I stated in an earlier
> thread, but there are some RPM maintainers there that may help you.
> It's the same with the BSD's, Solaris, HP-UX etc.
>
> Also, he doesn't want qmails name to be sullied by people that take it,
> make some changes and add bugs.
>
> He wants it in the same location on every system so it simplifies the docs
> and support.
> He makes some good points on his web site about that and Unix in general
> (better find the link I suppose... http://cr.yp.to/compatibility.html
>
> and personally, I agree, but hey, that's just my opinion.
>
> As I run 13 os's, it's a big deal and I've had to make notes of the
> locations of app's on different OS's.
>
> A right pain.
>
> Dan can also be abrasive (when he appears on the list, which is rare), but
> there again, it's the safe. secure and small/efficient programs he creates
> that I am interested in, not his politics, philosophy, color of his socks
> etc. Theo Raadt of OpenBSD is also abrasive, but produces great work. I
> guess they are geniuses in their own way. I've heard people on various
> mailing lists say they would never use their software because they were
> rude and arrogant. When you think about it; that probably tells you more
> about them and there ego's than anything else. It's pretty childish to
> refuse to use something just because you don't like someone. (I guess I'm
> rambling a bit, so I better end this).
>
> ><snip>
> >
> > > September/October 2001 of 1 million random IP's gave the following
> > > results
> > >
> > > :-
> > >
> > > sendmail 42%
> > > qmail 17%
> > > Exchange/IIs - 18.4%
> > > Postfix 1.5%
> > > Exim 1.5%
> >
> >Interesting point. This measures only those who advertise port 25 or the
> >like at their IP. I don't, and I wonder how many others don't as well.
> >
> >Paul
>
> Who knows ?
>
> Anyone want to do a survey ? Paul ?
>
> A million IP's times the number IP's you will scan.
>
> I think you would get :-
>
> 1) A lot of complaints from users/system admins
>
> 2) Probably lose your account for port scanning
>
> 3) Might get sued
>
> 4) Find yourself in lots of portsentry and other 'denied' files
>
> lol...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:18:48 EDT