Re: Bind v. TinyDNS

[WipeOut <wipe_out@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alexander Dalloz wrote:

> Am So, den 04.01.2004 schrieb WipeOut um 15:50:
>  
>
> > Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 13:20, WipeOut wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > >
> > > > IIRC, his licence says that you can't re-distribute binary versions of 
> > > > his software but it can be re-distributed as source..
> > > >   
> > > >
> > > >        
> > > DJB's license only allows pristine redistribution.
> > >
> > > He considers the distribution of patches as somethings separate.
> > >
> > > Everyone having to maintain a complex qmail MTA at an ISP usually has to
> > > patch qmail with SEVERAL patches that _are_not_ going to ever be
> > > integrated, easing most everyone's life.
> > >
> > > Every time there an update on one patch, those admins suffer real pains
> > > that could have been avoided if but Dan's arrogance allowed it.
> > >
> > > Rui
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > This I have to agree with.. keeping track of patches is a nightmare.. It 
> > would be nice to have an up to date version..
> >
> > Later..
> >    
>
> http://www-dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/~ma/qmail-bugs.html
>
> A lot of reasons to take any other MTA and to kick qmail in the desert.
>
> Alexander
>
>
>  
If you want to run your mailbox config from a DB (eg mysql) and have 
mailbox softquota's work correctly the AFAIK qmail with courierIMAP is 
the only combination..

I have heard that there is a patch to postfix to make it look at the 
softquota's but based on that I think the qmail patches are better.. and 
the developers of postfix don't seem to want to integrate the quota code 
into postfix..

later..