Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW

2008-12-07 Thread Kalle Kivimaa
Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So it might well be that those SMTP servers, that accept mail regardless > of the existence of the recipient mailbox, take load off your server's > spam processing, because they eat spammer's resources. I rather use a MTA that implements SMTP time delays t

Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW

2008-12-06 Thread Stephen Gran
This one time, at band camp, Gerrit Pape said: > Finally, just as not supporting VRFY, not rejecting in the SMTP > conversation makes it harder for the spammers to sort out bad recipient > addresses, and so to use their resources even more efficiently. That is so stunningly wrong an argument I can

Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW

2008-12-05 Thread Gerrit Pape
Hi, On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 11:05:31AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > Out of curiosity, does netqmail fix at least the delayed bounce > problem? no, or maybe: not yet; they gave notice of including that, but nothing happened yet http://marc.info/?l=qmail&m=120275739720434&w=2 On Thu, Dec 04,

Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW

2008-12-04 Thread Florian Weimer
* Gerrit Pape: > Right now, upstream doesn't completely agree with Andree's list of > bugs. Out of curiosity, does netqmail fix at least the delayed bounce problem? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW

2008-12-04 Thread Kalle Kivimaa
Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've yet to be pointed to a grave or serious bug in the packages pending > in NEW, otherwise I see no reason why they shouldn't be processed and > pass NEW. I completely agree with this well written post Does the package in NEW fix the well known backscat

Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW

2008-12-04 Thread Gerrit Pape
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 11:29:13AM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote: > Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi, I'm quite surprised how the inclusion of qmail and related packages > > into sid is handled, or rather not handled, by the ftpmasters. > > I downloaded the netqmail source from http://dbn.

Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW

2008-12-02 Thread Bjørn Mork
Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, I'm quite surprised how the inclusion of qmail and related packages > into sid is handled, or rather not handled, by the ftpmasters. I downloaded the netqmail source from http://dbn.smarden.org/sid/ and looked briefly at it, to see if most of the well