Re: eQmail or s/qmail

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 07:15:08PM +0200, Kai Peter wrote:
> On 2016-05-15 11:34, [email protected] wrote:
> >In linux most packages are distributed as rpms; packages providing
> >additional functionality also come that way making maintenance easier.
> >Additional configuration should be well structured. A good example
> >being Apache. Qmail, somehow, never took that route. That is why it
> >takes a specialist to use qmail and they are invariably in short
> >supply.
> >
> >-C
> AFAIR the original license didn't allow to distribute qmail as
> binaries. Some distros have had packages later on. They removed them
> - may be because a lack of maintenance. FreeBSD and Gentoo have
> still a netqmail package in their repos. Anyhow, creating packages
> from sources should be the job of the package maintainers of their
> distro.

Public domain since 2007, nearly ten years though so this shouldn't 
apply now.

I think the problem is that most distros have a mailer of choice now, so 
switching to something different is likely to upset their user base. 
Including a patched qmail in binary form should be possible if someone 
wishes to maintain it.

-- 
Best regards,
Ed http://www.s5h.net/