[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why were all DJB's ports removed? No more qmail?

Tobias Weingartner wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 28, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> >
> > In that case, why don't we standardize on his daemontools and ucspi-tcp
> > package?  It would one-up us over the NetBSD folks with their shiny
> > new "rc.d" toy, and everyone would love a setup that finally got rid
> > of inetd.conf for something more flexible and secure.  I'd be willing
> > to modify apache to work with daemontools svc.
> Surely you jest?

...and don't call me surely :P (Could'nt resist;-))

Jonathan might be a fan of ucspi-tcp/daemontools, however I am not as
it never fitted well for my needs(ever!!). Talking about NetBSD rc.d,
I think someone already posted a work (derived from NetBSD) for
OpenBSD...check archives. 

As for apache running under svc...umm I am not sure where you are
going with this? Apache does'nt run out of inetd in the core install
anyway (standalone daemon). Why add it to svc in the first place?

Just to bring out a few fallacies from Dan's claims,  postfix-users@
has a shit match going on discussing which mailer has better
performance [Thread : Postfix vs. qmail benchmark here]. Let me a
quote from an email:

"..That's not the only of Dan's documents which is out of date, I have
more than once asked Dan to update
http://cr.yp.to/maildisasters/postfix.html, but he never replied. All
of Dan's rightful sorrows about Postfix security have been addressed
1998-12-25, so Dan has not updated the document for more than 30
months. Can Dan's warnings about third-party software be taken
seriously? "Decide for yourself."..."


Kevin Sindhu <kevin at tgivan dot com>
Systems Engineer

TGI Technologies Inc.		
107 E 3rd Avenue
Vancouver, British Columbia V5T 1C7
Tel: (604) 872-6676 Ext 321
Fax: (604) 872-6601