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

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gerrit Pape <pape@dbnbgs.smarden.org>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: ITP: qmail -- a secure, reliable, efficient, simple message transfer agent

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:40:10 +0000

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist

qmail is meant as a replacement for the entire sendmail-binmail system
on typical Internet-connected UNIX hosts. See BLURB, BLURB2, BLURB3, and
BLURB4 in /usr/share/doc/qmail/ for more detailed advertisements.

See /usr/share/doc/qmail/PIC.* for some ``end-to-end'' pictures of mail
flowing through the qmail system.

See http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail.html for other qmail-related software
and a pointer to the qmail mailing list.

Other documentation: http://pobox.com/~djb/proto.html shows solutions to
several Internet mail problems; many of these solutions are implemented
in qmail. CHANGES and THANKS show how qmail has changed since it was
first released; SECURITY, INTERNALS, THOUGHTS, and TODO record many of
the qmail design decisions (found in /usr/share/doc/qmail/).


License
 qmail is in the public domain

There'll be the following binary packages: qmail, qmail-uid-gids,
fastforward, dot-forward, qmail-run.  The packages are derived from
the unofficial ones available through
 http://smarden.org/pape/Debian/qmail.html

Regards, Gerrit.

Message #10 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 457318@bugs.debian.org

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

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:23:52 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 02:28:28PM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote:

> qmail is meant as a replacement for the entire sendmail-binmail system
> on typical Internet-connected UNIX hosts. See BLURB, BLURB2, BLURB3, and
> BLURB4 in /usr/share/doc/qmail/ for more detailed advertisements.
[...]

This is not a proper ITP. You only mention where to find documentation
on system with a supposedly already installed qmail. To file a proper
ITP, make sure you've read the policy manual about what to put in the
short and long description of a package, and do:

aptitude install reportbug
reportbug wnpp

And select 1.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards,
      Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #15 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org>

To: Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>, pape@smarden.org

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 457318@bugs.debian.org

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

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:58:32 +0100

On 11240 March 1977, Guus Sliepen wrote:

>> qmail is meant as a replacement for the entire sendmail-binmail system
>> on typical Internet-connected UNIX hosts. See BLURB, BLURB2, BLURB3, and
>> BLURB4 in /usr/share/doc/qmail/ for more detailed advertisements.
> This is not a proper ITP. You only mention where to find documentation
> on system with a supposedly already installed qmail. To file a proper
> ITP, make sure you've read the policy manual about what to put in the
> short and long description of a package, and do:

And then there is the question if such a piece of software should really
go into Debian. There are *way* better  MTAs out there that dont need
tons of patches applied just to fulfill basic requirements for a MTA.

-- 
bye Joerg
<HE> Meine Gedanken sind von dem Bild gefangen, wie Tolimar mit nacktem
	 Oberkörper und schokoladenverschmierten Fingern vor Meike tanzt #-)
<Ganneff> HE: du bist eklig
<HE> Ich bin wirklich richtig schlimm krank im Kopf.

Message #20 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "John H. Robinson, IV" <jaqque@debian.org>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>, pape@smarden.org, 457318@bugs.debian.org

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

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:25:30 -0800

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.

-- 
John H. Robinson, IV          jaqque@debian.org
                                                                 http  ((((
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above,         sbih.org ( )(:[
as apparently my cats have learned how to type.          spiders.html  ((((

Message #25 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>, pape@smarden.org, 457318@bugs.debian.org

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

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:14:01 -0800

"John H. Robinson, IV" <jaqque@debian.org> writes:
> 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.

Is the version that is proposed to be packaged patched to reject mail at
the SMTP level for unknown users rather than accept mail and bounce it
later?  qmail in its default operational mode is a spam reflector and
hence broken by design, and shouldn't be accepted into Debian.  However,
perhaps this has been fixed by the community since djb's last release?

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Message #30 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: debian-curiosa@lists.debian.org, 457318@bugs.debian.org

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

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:20:45 -0800

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? ;-)


Don Armstrong

-- 
My spelling ability, or rather the lack thereof, is one of the wonders
of the modern world.

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Message #35 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Leo \"costela\" Antunes" <costela@debian.org>

To: 457318@bugs.debian.org

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

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:17:08 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

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.

There are certainly many others that don't need patches to fulfill basic
requirements for an MTA, but whether they are better or not is
irrelevant for us, given Qmail's level of widespread adoption. There's
no discussion that there are still many people interested in having it
available.
After all, it's not like it's a 100 line C program with 10 totally
compatible alternatives... unfortunately! :-)

Cheers.

-- 
Leo "costela" Antunes
[insert a witty retort here]

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #40 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>, 457318@bugs.debian.org

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

Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:07:18 +1100

On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 04:23:52PM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 02:28:28PM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> 
> > qmail is meant as a replacement for the entire sendmail-binmail system
> > on typical Internet-connected UNIX hosts. See BLURB, BLURB2, BLURB3, and
> > BLURB4 in /usr/share/doc/qmail/ for more detailed advertisements.
> [...]
> 
> This is not a proper ITP. You only mention where to find documentation
> on system with a supposedly already installed qmail. To file a proper
> ITP, make sure you've read the policy manual about what to put in the

Policy doesn't dictate the format of an ITP message though, or even a
requirement to submit one. This particular ITP doesn't need to explain
what qmail is (the target audience already knows) and the ITP isn't
intended to be a review of the final descriptions.


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>

Message #45 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gaudenz Steinlin <gaudenz@debian.org>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>, 457318@bugs.debian.org

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

Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:42:28 +0100

On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 11:07:18AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 04:23:52PM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 02:28:28PM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> > 
> > > qmail is meant as a replacement for the entire sendmail-binmail system
> > > on typical Internet-connected UNIX hosts. See BLURB, BLURB2, BLURB3, and
> > > BLURB4 in /usr/share/doc/qmail/ for more detailed advertisements.
> > [...]
> > 
> > This is not a proper ITP. You only mention where to find documentation
> > on system with a supposedly already installed qmail. To file a proper
> > ITP, make sure you've read the policy manual about what to put in the
> 
> Policy doesn't dictate the format of an ITP message though, or even a
> requirement to submit one. This particular ITP doesn't need to explain
> what qmail is (the target audience already knows) and the ITP isn't
> intended to be a review of the final descriptions.

While it's correct that the policy does not say anything about ITPs IMHO
one of the reasons ITPs are usually CCed to debian-devel is the review
short and long description. This review is quite important for the
quality of these descriptions. So the ITP should in IMO include a draft
of the final short and long description.

Gaudenz
-- 
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~

Message #50 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>

To: debian-curiosa@lists.debian.org, 457318@bugs.debian.org

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

Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:55:39 +0100

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.

-- 
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22

Message #55 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org>

To: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>

Cc: debian-curiosa@lists.debian.org, 457318@bugs.debian.org

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

Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:20:37 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

This one time, at band camp, Wouter Verhelst said:
> 
> 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.

I don't agree with this, actually.  qmail is so poorly designed it can't
stay running without a supervisor, and in it's default state is a
giant producer of backscatter.  I believe Debian is about quality
software, not just popular software, and those two reasons alone are
sufficient for me to say qmail fails the "quality" test.

Take care,
-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
|   ,''`.                                            Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :                                        sgran@debian.org |
|  `. `'                        Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-                                     http://www.debian.org |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #60 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Toni Mueller <toni@debian.org>

To: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>, pape@smarden.org, 457318@bugs.debian.org

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

Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:03:21 +0100

Hi,

On Fri, 21.12.2007 at 11:14:01 -0800, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
> Is the version that is proposed to be packaged patched to reject mail at
> the SMTP level for unknown users rather than accept mail and bounce it
> later?  qmail in its default operational mode is a spam reflector and
> hence broken by design, and shouldn't be accepted into Debian.  However,
> perhaps this has been fixed by the community since djb's last release?

I suggest packaging qmail-ldap (www.qmail-ldap.org) instead, which
fixes this problem and adds a number of other desirable features as
well (compressed mail transfer, TLS support, cluster support,
you-name-it).


Best,
--Toni++

Message #65 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@debian.org>

To: Toni Mueller <toni@debian.org>

Cc: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>, pape@smarden.org, 457318@bugs.debian.org

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

Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:17:16 +0100

Quoting Toni Mueller <toni@debian.org>:

> I suggest packaging qmail-ldap (www.qmail-ldap.org) instead, which
> fixes this problem and adds a number of other desirable features as
> well (compressed mail transfer, TLS support, cluster support,
> you-name-it).

I sent a patch to qmail-src to build both 'qmail' AND 'qmail-ldap' packages.
This patch SHOULD be in the BTS. If not, I'm happy to remake it (my source
package build both these binary packages so...).

There are times where qmail-ldap is to much (on hosts where a smart host
is used for example) and there I use the 'simple' qmail package. On mail
servers, I use the qmail-ldap package...


In other words, better integrate the LDAP stuff into the qmail-src (or
simply - if the new license is ok - the 'qmail' source package).

It will be easier to maintain one source package instead of two...

Preferably, the package should be taken over (if the current maintainer
isn't interessted!!) by someone that understand both qmail and qmail-ldap.
I'll be happy to help, but I don't have time to be the official maintainer -
unless I get help that is.

Message #70 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Toni Mueller <toni@debian.org>

To: Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@debian.org>

Cc: Toni Mueller <toni@debian.org>, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>, pape@smarden.org, 457318@bugs.debian.org

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

Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:21:57 +0100

Hi,

On Sun, 23.12.2007 at 20:17:16 +0100, Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@debian.org> wrote:
> There are times where qmail-ldap is to much (on hosts where a smart host
> is used for example) and there I use the 'simple' qmail package. On mail
> servers, I use the qmail-ldap package...

why, just set control/ldapsoftok, and you're all set (probably), except
that you need the ldap libs being installed.

> It will be easier to maintain one source package instead of two...

Right. How about integrating ldap-control, too?

> Preferably, the package should be taken over (if the current maintainer
> isn't interessted!!) by someone that understand both qmail and qmail-ldap.
> I'll be happy to help, but I don't have time to be the official maintainer -
> unless I get help that is.

Same thing here. ;)


Best,
--Toni++

Message #75 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@debian.org>

To: 457318@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

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

Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 07:32:56 +0100

Quoting Toni Mueller <toni@debian.org>:

> Right. How about integrating ldap-control, too?

The patch I'm talking about have this (quite naturally :).

Message #82 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen)

To: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>

Cc: debian-curiosa@lists.debian.org, 457318@bugs.debian.org

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

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 20:14:54 -0500

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

Message #89 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be>

To: Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>

Cc: 457318@bugs.debian.org

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

Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 15:24:57 +0100

[-curiosa dropped]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 08:14:54PM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 03:55:39PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > 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?

About a month ago, or something. See http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html

> And isn't it already packaged in non-free
> where it belongs?

There's a qmail-src package in non-free, but not a qmail package.

-- 
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22

Message #96 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gerrit Pape <pape@dbnbgs.smarden.org>

To: ftpmaster@debian.org

Cc: 457318@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: netqmail_1.06-1_powerpc.changes is NEW

Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:43:38 +0000

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 09:47:03AM +0000, Debian Installer wrote:
> (new) netqmail_1.06-1.diff.gz extra mail
> (new) netqmail_1.06-1.dsc extra mail
> (new) netqmail_1.06.orig.tar.gz extra mail
> (new) qmail-uids-gids_1.06-1_all.deb extra mail
> (new) qmail_1.06-1_powerpc.deb extra mail

Hi, do you have any comments on the netqmail and related packages, or an
estimation when you get to process them?

Thanks, Gerrit.

Message #101 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gerrit Pape <pape@dbnbgs.smarden.org>

To: ftpmaster@debian.org

Cc: 457318@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: netqmail_1.06-1_powerpc.changes is NEW

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:50:27 +0000

On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 02:43:38PM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 09:47:03AM +0000, Debian Installer wrote:
> > (new) netqmail_1.06-1.diff.gz extra mail
> > (new) netqmail_1.06-1.dsc extra mail
> > (new) netqmail_1.06.orig.tar.gz extra mail
> > (new) qmail-uids-gids_1.06-1_all.deb extra mail
> > (new) qmail_1.06-1_powerpc.deb extra mail
> 
> Hi, do you have any comments on the netqmail and related packages, or an
> estimation when you get to process them?

Hi, what's the reason for the netqmail and related packages to last that
long in the new queue without any comments?

Thanks, Gerrit.

Message #106 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org>

To: 457318@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:46:55 +0000

Hi, packages are available through
 http://smarden.org/pape/Debian/sid.html

Regards, Gerrit.

Message #111 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com>

To: 457318@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: the importance of qmail

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:22:28 -0400

Postfix had yet another security hole the other week:
http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1629

Can't we include at least one mailer for people who care about
security? (Let alone reliability and elegance.)

Message #116 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gerrit Pape <pape@dbnbgs.smarden.org>

To: Joerg Jaspert <ftpmaster@debian.org>

Cc: 457318@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: netqmail_1.06-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED

Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:36:07 +0000

On Sun, Jul 06, 2008 at 02:19:30PM +0000, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi Maintainer,
> 
> rejected, for various reasons (this mail applies to all of the various
> qmail and qmail related packages currently in NEW, namely
> netqmail, qmail-run, qmail-tools, dot-forward, fastforward).

Hi ftpmaster, I had some problems separating the items that are reasons
to reject the packages from other comments about the packaging in
general, and the upstream software.  The netqmail, qmail-run, and
fastforward packages have been updated to address the issues, and all
packages are re-uploaded.

> First - the packaging is nowhere near the standard Debian aspires to in the
> archive:
> 
> Qmail is an MTA and as such should follow Debian Policy (for example Section
> 11.6).  It's therefore not a very good start that an MTA package needs
> additional packages (qmail-run) installed to perform the minimal tasks
> required of mail-transport-agent, and yet another package (fastforward) to
> support /etc/aliases.

Hmm, the MTA package actually is qmail-run, as can be read from the
README.Debian's in the qmail-run and qmail packages.  And qmail-run
needs the qmail package, which provides the qmail programs and queue
structure, as well as the fastforward package, which provides support
for the /etc/aliases database.  I can't see anything wrong with this, to
the contrary, the modularity of the packages provides more flexibility,
e.g.:

 o users can install the qmail package without the qmail-run package to
   configure qmail as MTA manually, next to another MTA package already
   installed on the system
 o users can install the qmail package without the qmail-run package if
   they wish to use some programs from the qmail package, e.g.
   qmail-popup and qmail-pop3d, and wish to have a different default
   MTA installed, such as postfix
 o users can disable the /etc/aliases support, and switch to a different
   alias handling if they like; the package providing the /etc/aliases
   database support can then be removed from the system

> Now, looking into the binary packages provided by netqmail there are a
> *few* points to list:
> 
> qmail-uids-gids
>   * Uses addgroup in preinst without a pre-depends

I fixed this in -2, users and groups are now handled in the postinst.

>   * Uses useradd instead of adduser (policy 9.2.2)

As I read the policy, 9.2.2 mandates adduser for dynamically allocated
users and groups, but not globally allocated.  Since the qmail uids and
gids are in the 60000-64999 range, useradd/groupadd should be just fine.

>   * Why install the uids/gids in preinst?

I fixed this in -2, users and groups are now handled in the postinst.

>   * User interaction without using debconf (policy 3.9.1) in both preinst and
>     postrm (ok, it's just giving info, but still)
This hasn't changed.

>   * Aborts in preinst if:
>     - "Upgrading" from a pre 1.06 version (presumably unofficial)

Yes, by intention.  I can't see how this is a reason for reject, other
new package don't care at all if they replace some unofficial or
non-free packages, possibly breaking a working installation.  I think
aborting in that case is a good thing.

>     - UIDs / GIDs aren't what it expects (as the qmail binary then uses these
>       UIDs *it* can't be installed without the UIDs being right, but why does
>       qmail-uids-gids fail?)

The qmail-uids-gids package is a build-dependency of netqmail.

>   * Recommends manual use of userdel and groupdel rather than deluser /
>     delgroup in postrm 
This hasn't changed.

> qmail
>   * Installs /var/lib/qmail with alias, bin, boot, queue directories
Yes, shouldn't be a reason for reject.

>     - Also:
>       + users symlink to /etc/qmail/users/
>       + control symlink to /etc/qmail/
>       + doc symlink to /usr/share/doc/qmail/
Yes, shouldn't be a reason for reject.

>     - bin/ contains mostly symlinks back to /usr/bin and /usr/sbin but
>       one binary is present (config-fast)

Yes, in -2 the config-fast program is moved to /usr/lib/qmail/bin/.

>     - boot/ contains what looks like scripts (should probably be in
>       /usr/lib/qmail with a symlink if necessary)

Yes, in -2 the boot/ subdirectory is moved into /usr/lib/qmail/, and
symlinked back.

>     - queue/ is basically the only part which any sane MTA would have in /var
> 
>  * Preinst fails if attempting an upgrade from < 1.06 (presumably unofficial)
Yes, shouldn't be a reason for reject.

>  * Aborts in postinst if system doesn't have FQDN
Yes, I can't see anything wrong with this.

> Looking at qmail-run there is also:
>  * README recommends manually installing non FHS compliant symlinks:
>    ln -s /var/lib/qmail /var/qmail
>    ln -s /etc/service /service
>    Not a policy bug, but certainly in bad taste...
This hasn't changed.

>  * C/R/Ps mail-transport-agent
>    - Now, this does provide /usr/{sbin,lib}/sendmail
Yes, as said above, qmail-run is the package providing the MTA
functionality, shouldn't be a reason for reject.

>    - But as for /etc/aliases, /usr/sbin/newaliases is:
> 
> #!/bin/sh
> cat >&2 <<EOT
> 
> qmail on Debian by default doesn't support the /etc/aliases database,
> but handles mail aliases differently, please see
>  http://lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#aliases
> 
> EOT
> exit 1
> 
>    which breaks policy 11.6

I changed that in version 2.0.1.  qmail-run now recommends the
fastforward package, which in version -2 by default supports the
/etc/aliases database, and also includes the newaliases program.

>  * Why is qmailctl in /usr/bin?
Because it might be of use for other accounts than the system
administrator.

>  * preinst break on upgrades *AGAIN*
>  * postinst errors if no FQDN
Yes, as above, shouldn't be a reason for reject.

>  * No man pages:
> 
>  ---- lintian check for qmail-run_2.0.0_all.deb ----
> W: qmail-run: binary-without-manpage usr/sbin/mailq
> W: qmail-run: binary-without-manpage usr/sbin/newaliases
> W: qmail-run: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/qmailctl
> W: qmail-run: binary-without-manpage usr/sbin/sendmail
I'm sorry, I did not yet write them, that shouldn't be a reason for
reject.

> dot-forward only has
>  * Lots of code duplication from netqmail in the supporting code (alloc
>    routines etc).  Apparently djb hasn't heard of libraries.
This shouldn't be a reason for reject.

> And finally qmail-tools:
>  * Native tarball contains upstream tarball for queue_repair.py
Yes.

>  * Package mainly to help with upgrading from non-free / unofficial packages,
>    but the scripts just state that it isn't supported...

I prepared the hooks to implement upgrades from non-free and unofficial
qmail packages, but not yet the upgrade process itself.  I'm ready to do
so once the packaging has stabilized and the packages are accepted.
Again, I can't see anything wrong with this, other new packages don't
provide this convenience at all.

>  * So only use is queue_repair.py; why native?

From what I read from debian-devel over the years, simple one-script
packages are not very popular, and usually it's advised to include the
script into another package providing similar functionality.  There've
been a lot of scripts developed around qmail through the years, and I
expect that users will ask to have some packaged for Debian.  The
qmail-tools package should then be the place for this.

>  * /usr/sbin/queue_repair is a horribly generic name
Hm.


> Aside from these technical - and possibly fixable - problems, we (as in the
> ftpteam) have discussed the issue, and we are all of the opinion that qmail
> should die, and not receive support from Debian. As such we *STRONGLY*
> ask you to reconsider uploading those packages.
> 
> Qmail is dead upstream and requires a whole set of patches to even begin to
> work in the manner expected of a modern MTA.  Given this, the fact that this
> means there is also no upstream security support, and the fact that Debian
> already contains at least three reasonable MTAs, we see no need to add qmail to
> the archive. So - please reconsider if it really helps Debian to have those
> packages. Also feel free to start a public discussion on
> debian-devel@lists.debian.org about the issue, including any relevant
> information from this email, in order to gather opinions from other project
> members.

We all know, I guess, that there's lots of different opinions on the
quality and usability of qmail.  There're people thinking like you, and
other people, including me, that have a different opinion.  I respect
your opinion, please respect ours too.  You're free to not install/use
the packages.  I've been contacted by several people since I announced
my intention to package qmail, speaking in favor of the inclusion into
Debian.

A public discussion already took place
 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.wnpp/69292/

I think your advise to start a discussion to gather support for the
packages is backwards.  Debian is about free software and users, the
qmail packages are free software, and users request the inclusion into
Debian.  If you are interested in not having qmail in Debian, you are
free to start a public discussion to find supporters for your position,
I guess you'll get some objections too.

This is a good quote from the thread above
 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.bugs.general/345930

 "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."

> -- 
> bye Joerg
> 
> 
> 
> ===
> 
> If you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if the
> override file requires editing, reply to this email.

Regards, Gerrit.

Message #121 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Sam Johnston" <samj@samj.net>

To: 457318@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Make it so...

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 01:53:50 +0200

> I believe Debian is about quality software, not just popular software, and those two reasons alone are sufficient for me to say qmail fails the "quality" test.

By that metric we've got a lot more to throw out...

Seriously though, qmail-src et al are an unnecessary annoyance. Get
this in ASAP, but work with existing maintainers - the last thing we
need for example is this to clash with the offspring of the
package-building-packages!

Sam

Message #126 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gerrit Pape <pape@dbnbgs.smarden.org>

To: ftpmaster@debian.org

Cc: 457318@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: netqmail_1.06-2_powerpc.changes is NEW

Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:33:31 +0000

On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 10:17:22PM +0000, Debian Installer wrote:
> (new) netqmail_1.06-2.diff.gz extra mail
> (new) netqmail_1.06-2.dsc extra mail
> (new) netqmail_1.06.orig.tar.gz extra mail
> (new) qmail-uids-gids_1.06-2_all.deb extra mail

Hi, do you have any further comments on the netqmail and related
packages, or an estimation when you get to process them?

Regards, Gerrit.

Message #131 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: 457318@bugs.debian.org

Subject: qmail and related packages in NEW

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:12:42 +0000

Hi, I'm quite surprised how the inclusion of qmail and related packages
into sid is handled, or rather not handled, by the ftpmasters.

Within a time-frame of six months I received exactly one rejection mail in
response to two uploads of the packages, a reply to the rejection mail,
and three mails asking about the progress because nothing happened.

http://smarden.org/pape/Debian/sid.html#nonprogress
 Mon, 28 Apr 2008: uploaded packages to ftp-master.
 Tue, 03 Jun 2008: no response, asking for progress.
 Tue, 17 Jun 2008: no response, asking again.
 Sun, 06 Jul 2008: received this REJECT email.
 Mon, 01 Sep 2008: uploaded updated packages to NEW, and sent a reply.
 Tue, 11 Nov 2008: no response, asking for progress.
 Thu, 20 Nov 2008: no response.
 Today: still no response.

Lacking any response, I can only guess what the reason for the delay is.
From my point of view this reason is questionable, and I stated so in my
response to the reject mail.  Receiving no response within eight weeks
tells me that discussing doesn't work.

On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 10:36:07PM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 06, 2008 at 02:19:30PM +0000, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Aside from these technical - and possibly fixable - problems, we (as
> > in the ftpteam) have discussed the issue, and we are all of the
> > opinion that qmail should die, and not receive support from Debian. As
> > such we *STRONGLY* ask you to reconsider uploading those packages.
> >
> > Qmail is dead upstream and requires a whole set of patches to even
> > begin to work in the manner expected of a modern MTA.  Given this, the
> > fact that this means there is also no upstream security support, and
> > the fact that Debian already contains at least three reasonable MTAs,
> > we see no need to add qmail to the archive. So - please reconsider if
> > it really helps Debian to have those packages. Also feel free to start
> > a public discussion on debian-devel@lists.debian.org about the issue,
> > including any relevant information from this email, in order to gather
> > opinions from other project members.
>
> We all know, I guess, that there's lots of different opinions on the
> quality and usability of qmail.  There're people thinking like you, and
> other people, including me, that have a different opinion.  I respect
> your opinion, please respect ours too.  You're free to not install/use
> the packages.  I've been contacted by several people since I announced
> my intention to package qmail, speaking in favor of the inclusion into
> Debian.
>
> A public discussion already took place
>  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.wnpp/69292/
>
> I think your advise to start a discussion to gather support for the
> packages is backwards.  Debian is about free software and users, the
> qmail packages are free software, and users request the inclusion into
> Debian.  If you are interested in not having qmail in Debian, you are
> free to start a public discussion to find supporters for your position,
> I guess you'll get some objections too.

I've no idea where yet another thread on this list should take us.  To me
the situation is clear.  There's a user base for these packages, and a
Debian developer ready to maintain them.

I count at least three Debian developers speaking in favor of the
inclusion, I've been approached by several users asking me to make my
unofficial packages officially available in Debian, another Debian
developer has a package depending on qmail in the NEW queue.

In my opinion, ftpmasters should reject packages on grounds of Debian
policy or (maybe) the Debian body.  If they wish a permanent rejection of
qmail and related packages, they should try to find that consensus within
Debian, and, if successful, add that decision to
 http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package

Can you advise me on how to get out of that dilemma?

Thanks, Gerrit.

See
 http://bugs.debian.org/457318
 http://smarden.org/pape/Debian/sid.html#nonprogress
 http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.wnpp/69292/
for all the details.

Message #136 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: 457318@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 00:33:22 +0100

On 11583 March 1977, Gerrit Pape wrote:

As i got asked for the complete text of the rejection mail, as the
thread start only had a partial quote, here it is.

--8<------------------------schnipp------------------------->8---
From: Joerg Jaspert <ftpmaster@debian.org>
Subject: netqmail_1.06-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED
To: Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org>
Cc: Debian Installer <installer@ftp-master.debian.org>
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:19:30 +0200

Hi Maintainer,

rejected, for various reasons (this mail applies to all of the various
qmail and qmail related packages currently in NEW, namely
netqmail, qmail-run, qmail-tools, dot-forward, fastforward).

First - the packaging is nowhere near the standard Debian aspires to in the
archive:

Qmail is an MTA and as such should follow Debian Policy (for example Section
11.6).  It's therefore not a very good start that an MTA package needs
additional packages (qmail-run) installed to perform the minimal tasks
required of mail-transport-agent, and yet another package (fastforward) to
support /etc/aliases.

Now, looking into the binary packages provided by netqmail there are a
*few* points to list:

qmail-uids-gids
  * Uses addgroup in preinst without a pre-depends
  * Uses useradd instead of adduser (policy 9.2.2)
  * Why install the uids/gids in preinst?
  * User interaction without using debconf (policy 3.9.1) in both preinst and
    postrm (ok, it's just giving info, but still)
  * Aborts in preinst if:
    - "Upgrading" from a pre 1.06 version (presumably unofficial)
    - UIDs / GIDs aren't what it expects (as the qmail binary then uses these
      UIDs *it* can't be installed without the UIDs being right, but why does
      qmail-uids-gids fail?)
  * Recommends manual use of userdel and groupdel rather than deluser /
    delgroup in postrm 

qmail
  * Installs /var/lib/qmail with alias, bin, boot, queue directories
    - Also:
      + users symlink to /etc/qmail/users/
      + control symlink to /etc/qmail/
      + doc symlink to /usr/share/doc/qmail/
    - bin/ contains mostly symlinks back to /usr/bin and /usr/sbin but
      one binary is present (config-fast)
    - boot/ contains what looks like scripts (should probably be in
      /usr/lib/qmail with a symlink if necessary)
    - queue/ is basically the only part which any sane MTA would have in /var

 * Preinst fails if attempting an upgrade from < 1.06 (presumably unofficial)
 * Aborts in postinst if system doesn't have FQDN



Looking at qmail-run there is also:
 * README recommends manually installing non FHS compliant symlinks:
   ln -s /var/lib/qmail /var/qmail
   ln -s /etc/service /service
   Not a policy bug, but certainly in bad taste...
 * C/R/Ps mail-transport-agent
   - Now, this does provide /usr/{sbin,lib}/sendmail
   - But as for /etc/aliases, /usr/sbin/newaliases is:

#!/bin/sh
cat >&2 <<EOT

qmail on Debian by default doesn't support the /etc/aliases database,
but handles mail aliases differently, please see
 http://lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#aliases

EOT
exit 1

   which breaks policy 11.6
 * Why is qmailctl in /usr/bin?
 * preinst break on upgrades *AGAIN*
 * postinst errors if no FQDN
 * No man pages:

 ---- lintian check for qmail-run_2.0.0_all.deb ----
W: qmail-run: binary-without-manpage usr/sbin/mailq
W: qmail-run: binary-without-manpage usr/sbin/newaliases
W: qmail-run: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/qmailctl
W: qmail-run: binary-without-manpage usr/sbin/sendmail


dot-forward only has
 * Lots of code duplication from netqmail in the supporting code (alloc
   routines etc).  Apparently djb hasn't heard of libraries.


And finally qmail-tools:
 * Native tarball contains upstream tarball for queue_repair.py
 * Package mainly to help with upgrading from non-free / unofficial packages,
   but the scripts just state that it isn't supported...
 * So only use is queue_repair.py; why native?
 * /usr/sbin/queue_repair is a horribly generic name



Aside from these technical - and possibly fixable - problems, we (as in the
ftpteam) have discussed the issue, and we are all of the opinion that qmail
should die, and not receive support from Debian. As such we *STRONGLY*
ask you to reconsider uploading those packages.

Qmail is dead upstream and requires a whole set of patches to even begin to
work in the manner expected of a modern MTA.  Given this, the fact that this
means there is also no upstream security support, and the fact that Debian
already contains at least three reasonable MTAs, we see no need to add qmail to
the archive. So - please reconsider if it really helps Debian to have those
packages. Also feel free to start a public discussion on
debian-devel@lists.debian.org about the issue, including any relevant
information from this email, in order to gather opinions from other project
members.

--8<------------------------schnapp------------------------->8---

-- 
bye, Joerg
[...]that almost anything related to "intellectual property" is idiotic
by it's nature, [...]

Message #141 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri)

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 457318@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 00:40:50 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Nov 30, Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> wrote:

> Qmail is dead upstream and requires a whole set of patches to even begin to
> work in the manner expected of a modern MTA.  Given this, the fact that this
> means there is also no upstream security support, and the fact that Debian
> already contains at least three reasonable MTAs, we see no need to add qmail to
> the archive. So - please reconsider if it really helps Debian to have those
While I totally agree that qmail is an obsolete FPOS with many bad
problems and I hate it with a passion at least as much as any decent
person, I need to remind everybody that sadly it is a dependency of
Plesk (the only high quality administration panel software) so it's
still going to be installed anyway on many Debian servers.
Maybe having an official well-maintained package (and the one you
evalued clearly is not) is the least evil.

-- 
ciao,
Marco

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #146 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mikhail Gusarov <dottedmag@dottedmag.net>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: 457318@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:50:39 +0600

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Twas brillig at 00:40:50 01.12.2008 UTC+01 when md@Linux.IT did gyre and gimble:

 Md> I need to remind everybody that sadly it is a dependency of Plesk
 Md> (the only high quality administration panel software) so it's still
 Md> going to be installed anyway on many Debian servers.

 Md> Maybe having an official well-maintained package (and the one you
 Md> evalued clearly is not) is the least evil.

[speaking as Plesk ex-developer] It won't help, Plesk's qmail is patched
in various ways, including Plesk-specific patches, so version provided
by Debian won't help.

-- 

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #151 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: 457318@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:33:43 +0100

* Joerg Jaspert:

> On 11583 March 1977, Gerrit Pape wrote:
>
> As i got asked for the complete text of the rejection mail, as the
> thread start only had a partial quote, here it is.

Thanks!

> First - the packaging is nowhere near the standard Debian aspires to in the
> archive:
>
> Qmail is an MTA and as such should follow Debian Policy (for example Section
> 11.6).  It's therefore not a very good start that an MTA package needs
> additional packages (qmail-run) installed to perform the minimal tasks
> required of mail-transport-agent, and yet another package (fastforward) to
> support /etc/aliases.

Yuck.  I wasn't aware of that.  So the security discussion was kind of
a red herring, after all.

Message #158 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gerrit Pape <pape@dbnbgs.smarden.org>

To: ftpmaster@debian.org

Cc: 457318@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: netqmail_1.06-2_powerpc.changes is NEW

Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:37:43 +0000

On Sun, Jul 06, 2008 at 02:19:30PM +0000, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> packages. Also feel free to start a public discussion on
> debian-devel@lists.debian.org about the issue, including any relevant
> information from this email, in order to gather opinions from other
> project members.

Lacking any reply from you, discussion took place

 http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/11/thrd2.html#00599
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/12/threads.html#00005
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/12/threads.html#00077

I can't see a wide consensus supporting your position to reject qmail
and related packages permanently.

Do you have any further comments on the netqmail and related packages,
or an estimation when you get to process them?


On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:33:31AM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 10:17:22PM +0000, Debian Installer wrote:
> > (new) netqmail_1.06-2.diff.gz extra mail
> > (new) netqmail_1.06-2.dsc extra mail
> > (new) netqmail_1.06.orig.tar.gz extra mail
> > (new) qmail-uids-gids_1.06-2_all.deb extra mail
> 
> Hi, do you have any further comments on the netqmail and related
> packages, or an estimation when you get to process them?
> 
> Regards, Gerrit.

Message #163 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christoph Anton Mitterer <christoph.anton.mitterer@physik.uni-muenchen.de>

To: 457318@bugs.debian.org

Subject: anything new here

Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 01:05:04 +0200

Hi.

Has anything happened here in the meantime?

While I agree with Jörg, that the technical issues would have to be  
fixed,.. I disagree with the the argumentation that qmail should die.

Apart from the question whether it actually should or not,.. this is  
simply not debian's decision, is it?

If it does not directly double the functionality of another package  
(e.g. like having an qmail-from-maintainer1 and  
qmail-from-maintainer2) or violating DFSG or similar,... how could  
Debian judge on this.

There are many (upstream)unmaintained/outdated packages in Debian,...  
why forbid qmail?

Ah and perhaps to prove my "neutral" point of view,.. I'm using  
postfix (since many many years now),.. and I wouldn't use qmail ;)

Cheers,
Chris.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Message #170 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Luke Schierer" <luke@schierer.org>

To: 457318@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Status

Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 12:59:18 -0400 (EDT)

I would really like to see a qmail package available.  It is a shame to
see this stalled like this for so very long.

Is there any chance, at this point, that this package will be accepted?

Message #175 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gerrit Pape <pape@dbnbgs.smarden.org>

To: Archive Administrator <installer@ftp-master.debian.org>

Cc: 457318@bugs.debian.org, 510415@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: qmail-run_2.0.2_powerpc.changes is NEW

Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 12:40:10 +0000

On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 11:19:11AM +0000, Archive Administrator wrote:
> (new) qmail-run_2.0.2.dsc extra mail
> (new) qmail-run_2.0.2.tar.gz extra mail
> (new) qmail-run_2.0.2_all.deb extra mail
> sets up qmail as mail-transfer-agent
[...]

Hi, can you please say something about the status of the qmail and
related packages in NEW I uploaded in march?  Do you already have an
idea when the packages might be accepted or rejected?

Thanks, Gerrit.

Message #180 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gerrit Pape <pape@dbnbgs.smarden.org>

To: Archive Administrator <installer@ftp-master.debian.org>

Cc: 457318@bugs.debian.org, 510415@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: qmail-run_2.0.2_powerpc.changes is NEW

Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 19:12:04 +0000

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:40:10PM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 11:19:11AM +0000, Archive Administrator wrote:
> > (new) qmail-run_2.0.2.dsc extra mail
> > (new) qmail-run_2.0.2.tar.gz extra mail
> > (new) qmail-run_2.0.2_all.deb extra mail
> > sets up qmail as mail-transfer-agent
> [...]
> Hi, can you please say something about the status of the qmail and
> related packages in NEW I uploaded in march?  Do you already have an
> idea when the packages might be accepted or rejected?

Hi, can you please say something about the status of the qmail and
related packages in NEW I uploaded in march?  Do you already have an
idea when the packages might be accepted or rejected?

> Thanks, Gerrit.

Message #185 received at 457318@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gerrit Pape <pape@dbnbgs.smarden.org>

To: Archive Administrator <installer@ftp-master.debian.org>

Cc: 457318@bugs.debian.org, 510415@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#510415: qmail-run_2.0.2_powerpc.changes is NEW

Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 08:18:28 +0000

On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 07:12:04PM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:40:10PM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 11:19:11AM +0000, Archive Administrator wrote:
> > > (new) qmail-run_2.0.2.dsc extra mail
> > > (new) qmail-run_2.0.2.tar.gz extra mail
> > > (new) qmail-run_2.0.2_all.deb extra mail
> > > sets up qmail as mail-transfer-agent
> > [...]
> > Hi, can you please say something about the status of the qmail and
> > related packages in NEW I uploaded in march?  Do you already have an
> > idea when the packages might be accepted or rejected?
> 
> Hi, can you please say something about the status of the qmail and
> related packages in NEW I uploaded in march?  Do you already have an
> idea when the packages might be accepted or rejected?

No reaction or response to mails at all from ftpmasters within more than
eight months.  Obviously the packages are deliberately ignored.

Message #190 received at 457318-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org>

To: 457318-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#457318: fixed in netqmail 1.06-4

Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:32:48 +0000

Source: netqmail
Source-Version: 1.06-4

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
netqmail, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

netqmail_1.06-4.diff.gz
  to main/n/netqmail/netqmail_1.06-4.diff.gz
netqmail_1.06-4.dsc
  to main/n/netqmail/netqmail_1.06-4.dsc
qmail-uids-gids_1.06-4_all.deb
  to main/n/netqmail/qmail-uids-gids_1.06-4_all.deb
qmail_1.06-4_powerpc.deb
  to main/n/netqmail/qmail_1.06-4_powerpc.deb



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 457318@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org> (supplier of updated netqmail package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:38:02 +0000
Source: netqmail
Binary: qmail qmail-uids-gids
Architecture: source all powerpc
Version: 1.06-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org>
Changed-By: Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org>
Description: 
 qmail      - a secure, reliable, efficient, simple message transfer agent
 qmail-uids-gids - user ids and group ids for qmail
Closes: 457318
Changes: 
 netqmail (1.06-4) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * debian/rules, debian/qmail.postinst, debian/qmail.postrm: don't
     include named pipe queue/lock/trigger in the package, but create
     in postinst and remove in postrm (policy 10.6).
   * debian/control: Standards-Version: 3.8.4.0.
   * debian/qmail.postinst: don't restart qmail-send, qmail-verify
     services if the update-service program is not available.
 .
 netqmail (1.06-3) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * debian/diff/0001-Add-realrcptto-functionality-...diff: remove;
     obsolete.
   * 0001-qmail-errmsg-logging.diff, 0002-qmail-verify.diff; new; add
     qmail-verify functionality from Andrew Richards, an update to Paul
     Jarc's realrcptto patch.
   * debian/rules, debian/sbin: no longer build and install
     qmail-smtpd-realrcptto, qmail-qmtpd-realrcptto programs.
   * debian/sbin: add qmail-verify.
   * debian/diff/0003-qmail-verify-optionally-check-aliases.cdb-...diff:
     new: qmail-verify: optionally check aliases.cdb if fastforward is
     used.
   * debian/qmail.postinst: restart qmail-verify service on upgrade.
   * debian/qmail.README.Debian: talk about the qmail-verify and errmsg
     patches; typos.
 .
 netqmail (1.06-2) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * debian/qmail-uids-gids.preinst: don't check and/or create qmail
     users and groups in preinst to avoid pre-dependency on adduser.
   * debian/qmail-uids-gids.postinst: configure: check and/or create
     qmail users and groups.
   * debian/rules: place boot/ into /usr/lib/qmail/, link back to
     /var/lib/qmail/boot.
   * debian/rules, debian/qmail.postinst: install config-fast program
     into /usr/lib/qmail/bin/, instead of /var/lib/qmail/bin/.
   * debian/control: package qmail: Suggests: fastforward, dot-forward.
   * debian/control: Standards-Version: 3.8.0.1.
 .
 netqmail (1.06-1) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * new upstream version netqmail-1.06.
   * debian/control: change Source: to netqmail; no longer Depends:
     fastforward, dot-forward; Depends: qmail-uids-gids instead of
     Pre-Depends:.
   * debian/rules: remove target configure:; use glibc by default instead
     of dietlibc; no longer build upstream install, instcheck targets
     separately; use proc instead of proc+df as default delivery.
   * debian/gcc/, debian/install/: remove; obsolete.
   * debian/control: no longer Build-Depends: dietlibc-dev.
   * debian/rules: install into /var/lib/qmail/ instead of /var/qmail/;
     subdirectory control/ is a symlink to /etc/qmail, and users/ a
     symlink to /etc/qmail/users.
   * debian/control: add qmail-uids-gids package (previously a separate
     unofficial package).
   * debian/qmail-uids-gids.README.Debian, qmail-uids-gids.postrm,
     debian/qmail-uids-gids.preinst: new; from unofficial package,
     slightly adapt; ensure that the proper qmail uids and gids are
     installed.
   * debian/rules: split install: target into install-arch:,
     install-indep:; build qmail-uids-gids package in install-indep:.
   * debian/rules: target binary-arch: run dpkg-shlibdeps; target clean:
     remove debian/substvars.
   * debian/control: Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}; Standards-Version:
     3.7.3.0.
   * debian/rules, debian/qmail.postinst, debian/qmail.postinst: the
     config-fast program now resides in /var/lib/qmail/bin/ instead of
     /etc/qmail/1st-config/.
   * debian/rules: target clean: don't ignore error in make clean; drop
     /usr/sbin/qmail-rc, drop symlink /etc/qmail/boot -> /var/qmail/boot.
   * debian/qmail.conffiles: remove /usr/sbin/qmail-rc (obsolete).
   * debian/control: update short and long descriptions; Build-Depends:
     qmail-uids-gids (>> 1.06).
   * debian/qmail.preinst, debian/qmail-uids-gids.preinst: upgrading qmail
     from non-free and unofficial packages is not yet supported.
   * debian/implicit: update to revision a09db2e.
   * debian/qmail.docs: remove CHANGES, FILES, INSTALL, SYSDEPS, TARGETS,
     debian/var-qmail.filelist.
   * debian/var-qmail.filelist, debian/mkFilelist: remove; obsolete.
   * debian/qmail.postinst: default directory for services in Debian is
     /etc/services/; adapt paths; use the update-service program tocheck
     whether the qmail-send service is registered.
   * debian/qmail.postrm: adapt paths and version check.
   * debian/qmail.preinst: remove check for proper qmail uids and gids.
   * debian/qmail-uids-gids.preinst: uids and gids are now the same as in
     the non-free package, group nofiles is replaced with nogroup; no
     longer fixup uids, gids, upgrading is not yet supported.
   * debian/rules: target build: set conf-qmail and conf-groups, restore
     origs in target clean:.
   * debian/control: Recommends: qmail-run (>= 2.0.0), Suggests:
     qmail-tools.
   * debian/copyright: rewrite copyright.
   * debian/qmail-uids-gids.README.Debian, debian/qmail.README.Debian:
     redo.
   * debian/rules: install cdb.3, error.3, mbox.5 as *.3qmail, *.5qmail
     respectively, to avoid conflict with the libcdb-dev, manpages-dev,
     mutt packages.
   * debian/qmail.preinst, debian/qmail.postrm: no longer divert mutt's
     mbox.5 manpage.
   * debian/rules: new target patch: apply patches from debian/diff/;
     reverse apply in target clean:.
   * debian/diff/0001-Add-realrcptto-functionality-...diff: new: Add
     realrcptto functionality through qmail-?mtpd-realrcptto.
   * debian/rules, debian/sbin: build, install qmail-smtpd-realrcptto,
     qmail-qmtpd-realrcptto.
   * debian/qmail-uids-gids.postrm, debian/qmail-uids-gids.preinst,
     debian/qmail-uids-gids.README.Debian, debian/rules: use nofiles
     system group with arbitrary gid.
   * debian/control: package qmail-uids-gids: Depends: adduser.
   * upload to Debian/main (closes: #457318).
Checksums-Sha1: 
 579a1fbcdb50cf6f1bbfb33861768d2bc3f380d5 980 netqmail_1.06-4.dsc
 50afb9e911b138e8d162c483c4800e73dbacfe5a 26729 netqmail_1.06-4.diff.gz
 07ef435559f1ca0eef120f9ef961b00caa1b4b81 33474 qmail-uids-gids_1.06-4_all.deb
 db408e848a6a66b322915e65019f2dd0a8158692 397274 qmail_1.06-4_powerpc.deb
Checksums-Sha256: 
 9c7078fdf11f29dd987b95afa253de406dae56bcb05c92445050c32fc855e685 980 netqmail_1.06-4.dsc
 ee0e88b842fb602d56b749b66c2aff1d6d647ce1633cf23c04498f1e190aaf1c 26729 netqmail_1.06-4.diff.gz
 f13e1c1360d91f20e63c7e4dcace75cdfcbaed468f81ab0d693f6e8dbe150525 33474 qmail-uids-gids_1.06-4_all.deb
 f763b7c9cec2f935f781003bce903923c71001228c70d17ed554b7cc229a908c 397274 qmail_1.06-4_powerpc.deb
Files: 
 6c470b451b729e4b7c68d54ad96b0157 980 mail extra netqmail_1.06-4.dsc
 78ad174d65f27743551f19d00edff1f6 26729 mail extra netqmail_1.06-4.diff.gz
 38860cb5b5a9ea9acd9f3fdfde72f9b5 33474 mail extra qmail-uids-gids_1.06-4_all.deb
 ab9c1dd4ac9c34942b46944dfc18f2de 397274 mail extra qmail_1.06-4_powerpc.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkujTawACgkQGJoyQbxwpv8DWACgmGx1CJx1Ud3PnVjt4ECWciWl
EDcAn0NNGzOYCC1D1zvMcuPMH3zahD30
=Odoi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.