[Fwd: Re: ms Exchange alternative (Dovecot)]

[Frank Shute]

On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 10:50:02PM +0000, gerald davies wrote:
>
> indeed. i thought large binaries had security implications so you're not 
> the only one.
> 
> also, i thought qmail was 'closed source' (?) which i always think is a bit 
> dodgy too from a 'its really secure' perspective.

The `closed source' slur is something put around by the `GPL nazis' ;)

The other slur of course being that FreeBSD development is closed and
if you're not a member of the core team you can't get any patches
you write committed!

With regards Qmail, the license allows you to make changes to it but
you're then not allowed to distribute a forked version of Qmail. If
there are any bugs in it you're welcome to submit those back to the
author for future releases. 

That's my understanding of it and I think it's certainly free enough
for most peoples purposes. In fact, I think it's quite a good license
and worth considering if one were to write a significant piece of
software but you wanted to retain control of it's development. See:

http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#license

(I can't find a license as such in the sources)

> 
> postfix was made up of small binaries and stuff.  not touched exim and as 
> for java...

I've heard good things about postfix, I don't know how it stands on
the vulnerabilities front. If it's to fall in line with my hypothesis
then it should be few.

> 
> doesn't Lotus offer Domino on linux? (i'm sure i've worked with something 
> like that before).

I don't know offhand; I guess if they don't, IBM are probably busy
porting it.

> 
> my 2 pence worth
> 

Thanks.

-- 

 Frank 

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
   Boroughbridge.
 Tel: 01423 323019
     ---------
PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/