Bind v. TinyDNS

[WipeOut]

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..