headers
Matthew Dempsky | 4 Nov 05:26

qmail in the public domain?

There's a thread discussing Dan's ``Some thoughts on security after
ten years of qmail 1.0'' paper, but I haven't seen any mention on the
slides to the corresponding talk[1].  Namely, page 10 says:

    2007.11: $500 -> $1000;
    qmail placed into public domain.

Does this mean what I think it does?  :-)

[1] http://cr.yp.to/talks/2007.11.02/slides.pdf
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Harald Hanche-Olsen | 4 Nov 09:13
Favicon

Re: qmail in the public domain?

+ "Matthew Dempsky" <matthew <at> dempsky.org>:

> There's a thread discussing Dan's ``Some thoughts on security after
> ten years of qmail 1.0'' paper, but I haven't seen any mention on the
> slides to the corresponding talk[1].  Namely, page 10 says:
> 
>     2007.11: $500 -> $1000;
>     qmail placed into public domain.
> 
> Does this mean what I think it does?  :-)
> 
> [1] http://cr.yp.to/talks/2007.11.02/slides.pdf

Well, he probably didn't put it there by mistake.  But the month isn't
over yet, and he hasn't changed http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html yet,

- Harald
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Russ Nelson | 5 Nov 02:02
Favicon

Re: qmail in the public domain?

Matthew Dempsky writes:
 > There's a thread discussing Dan's ``Some thoughts on security after
 > ten years of qmail 1.0'' paper, but I haven't seen any mention on the
 > slides to the corresponding talk[1].  Namely, page 10 says:
 > 
 >     2007.11: $500 -> $1000;
 >     qmail placed into public domain.
 > 
 > Does this mean what I think it does?  :-)

Yes.  So ... should we rename netqmail-1.05 to qmail-1.06 and include
SMTP-AUTH and TLS in it?

--

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com   | People have strong opinions
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | about economics even though
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | they've never studied it.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | Curious how that is!
Permalink | Reply |
headers
John Gateley | 5 Nov 02:46

Re: qmail in the public domain?

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 20:02:04 -0500
Russ Nelson <nelson <at> crynwr.com> wrote:

> Yes.  So ... should we rename netqmail-1.05 to qmail-1.06 and include
> SMTP-AUTH and TLS in it?

Yes to the SMTP-AUTH/TLS. No to the renaming. If qmail is in the public domain,
anyone can release a qmail-1.06. netqmail already has brand recognition.

j
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jason Haar | 5 Nov 05:21

Re: qmail in the public domain?

John Gateley wrote:
> Yes to the SMTP-AUTH/TLS. No to the renaming. If qmail is in the public domain,
> anyone can release a qmail-1.06. netqmail already has brand recognition.
>
>   
I agree - netqmail-1.06 with TLS (with client certs support for both
qmail-smtpd and qmail-remote), and SMTP-AUTH (including qmail-remote),
and recipient checking (no-one should be running an edge SMTP server
without that these days [sorry Dan - that's the truth!]).

Also, was RFC-2821 support (i.e. making qmail try other MX records on
4XX status) ever made part of netqmail?

Hmmm, starting to sound like a wish list, MUST... RESIST!!!...

--

-- 
Cheers

Jason Haar
Information Security Manager, Trimble Navigation Ltd.
Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417
PGP Fingerprint: 7A2E 0407 C9A6 CAF6 2B9F 8422 C063 5EBB FE1D 66D1
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Russ Nelson | 6 Nov 05:46
Favicon

Re: qmail in the public domain?

Jason Haar writes:
 > I agree - netqmail-1.06 with TLS (with client certs support for both
 > qmail-smtpd and qmail-remote), and SMTP-AUTH (including qmail-remote),
 > and recipient checking (no-one should be running an edge SMTP server
 > without that these days [sorry Dan - that's the truth!]).

Yes, JohnL asked for that, too.  And others have pointed out that
netqmail should persist.

 > Also, was RFC-2821 support (i.e. making qmail try other MX records on
 > 4XX status) ever made part of netqmail?

No.

--

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com   | People have strong opinions
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | about economics even though
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | they've never studied it.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | Curious how that is!
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane