Hi Chris,
like you, I prefer qmail for our mail purposes; we're running some
high-load mailing lists, and qmail gives us a much better performance
than any other MTA. Besides, I like it's modularity, which makes qmail
very extendable.
There has been a really _huge_ discussion on the qmail mailing list
about the release of qmail as a RPM package with Red Hat, maybe half a
year or even a bit longer ago. The thread was that huge that I have to
admit I got bored of it and stopped following the postings. So, best
best would be to dig the archives to get hold of the copies.
(without warranty for 100% correctness) There have been several issues;
one of tham was that qmail (as it comes "out of the package") requires
you to set up several users before compile time; the UIDs are compiled
into the binaries. This makes it difficult to generate RPM binaries that
are cross-system protable. Besides, qmail "prefers" to be installed
under /var/qmail, what might lead to other difficulties.
There are patches to help out, but I cannot remember wheter there has
been some licence or whatever trouble distributing patched binaries.
As I said, the best thing to do would be to dig out the old postings.
Maybe you could give us a brief summary of what was debated *wink*.
Best regards,
Matthias
w e b f a c t o r y
matthias pigulla
-----Original Message----- From: owner-suse-security@suse.com [mailto:owner-suse-security@suse.com]On Behalf Of Chris L. Mason Sent: Gn To: suse-security@suse.com Subject: [SuSE Security] Qmail (please!)
I just wanted to ask if there any plans to add qmail to a future version of SuSE? I much prefer qmail to sendmail as it is small, quick [...] So, is there any hope for qmail in future versions of SuSE?
On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 08:07:56PM +0200, Matthias Pigulla wrote: [...]
There has been a really _huge_ discussion on the qmail mailing list about the release of qmail as a RPM package with Red Hat, maybe half a year or even a bit longer ago. The thread was that huge that I have to admit I got bored of it and stopped following the postings. So, best best would be to dig the archives to get hold of the copies.
(without warranty for 100% correctness) There have been several issues; one of tham was that qmail (as it comes "out of the package") requires you to set up several users before compile time; the UIDs are compiled into the binaries. This makes it difficult to generate RPM binaries that are cross-system protable. Besides, qmail "prefers" to be installed under /var/qmail, what might lead to other difficulties. [...]
Wow, you're right about lots of discussion on this. It appears as if Dan Bernstein has been taking the concerns seriously though. On his home page, he provides information on how to prepare qmail packages: ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/qmail/var-qmail.html This includes instructions on how to prepare a binary package, including extra utilities that allow for sendmail compatibility (/etc/aliases, dot-forward files, etc.) It may be useful for SuSE to offer two packages: the "core" qmail package, and an additional package for sendmail compatibility, which the user can install or leave out as desired. (Actually three packages may be better, as non-mail-server systems may want to just install qmail-mini instead of the full qmail.) It also looks as though this page addresses the hard-coded UID and GID issues. As for the /var/qmail issue, Dan does appear to insist on that, but I don't see why it can't just be made a symlink if it is really necessary to put it somewhere else. Normally mail spool files go in /var anyway. I guess some people object to binaries and configuration files going there, but again, but that's where symbolic links can help if needed. I know there are a lot of "political" or "religious" feelings about some of this stuff, but I am just trying to focus on a practical solution. Any comments along this line are welcomed. Chris
participants (2)
-
Chris L. Mason -
Matthias Pigulla