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 at mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/> Current office temperature: 78 degrees Fahrenheit.