Bug#457318: ITP: qmail -- a secure, reliable, efficient, simple message transfer agent

On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 03:55:39PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 11:20:45AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are *way* better MTAs [than qmail] out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there that dont need tons of patches applied
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just to fulfill basic requirements for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MTA.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, there are not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, there are.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > No, there are not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, there are.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > No, there are not.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, there are.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No, there are not.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Yes, there are.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > No, there are not.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yes, there are.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > No, there are not.
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, there are.
> > >
> > > No, there are not.
> > 
> > Yes, there are.
> > 
> > Next? ;-)
> 
> I'd agree that there are way better ones out there. But I'd also say
> that it doesn't really matter which is best, and that this type of
> behaviour is quite childish. As long as qmail is free, packaged
> properly, and integrates well with the rest of Debian, I don't see why
> anyone should oppose its packaging.
> 
> Whether or not it's a good MTA, the fact is that it's a *popular* MTA.
> That alone should be a good reason to package it.

When did qmail become free?  And isn't it already packaged in non-free
where it belongs?

--
Len Sorensen