Talk:Qmail

message: The "wrong title" template should be removed because, grammatically, even words that are not normally capitalized are capitalized when they begin a sentence, paragraph or article. Thus, what is usually spelled "qmail" should be "Qmail" at the top of the article and whenever it begins a sentence.
qmail is a proper name, and is formally spelled all lowercase. The title of the article is incorrect, the software package name is qmail, never Qmail. The 'wrong title' template must remain. Anastrophe 07:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Title 

message: "As a consequence, some Linux distributions will not install..."  This is also true on
other open source operating systems, such as OpenBSD (see Re: Why were all DJB's ports removed? No more qmail?). Perhaps replace "Linux distributions" with "open source operating systems" or something similar?
--204.239.167.96 18:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it is definitely something you can cite, go for it! — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 18:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully I've made a decent edit, my only concern is the four citations that could be trimmed down. I will spend some time reading up on style before trying anything major. 204.239.167.96 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensing 

message: This site and company, a Hong Kong based hosting reseller, uses the qmail name and logo.  Is this officially endorsed by DJB?  They appear to abide by the license restrictions, only remote or on-site installation is sold, no binary CD packages, although that doesn't necessarily mean they compile and build qmail for their customers.
StevenMcCoy 14:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  qmail.com.hk 

message: Two things are going to happen to this section, and I'm giving a heads-up:
# Any critique of qmail that isn't sourced to a reliable secondary source --- IE, Rick Moen's personal website does not qualify --- are going to be stripped out.
# This section is going to be balanced with the rest of the article, so as not to give WP:UNDUE weight to a factional POV in an article about a piece of software.
The result of both of these changes is that I expect a number of pet criticisms to be removed. Source what you can, please. 
--- tqbf 16:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Adjusted. You cannot have an article on a piece of software with 7 grafs of description and 8 grafs of "controversy". --- tqbf 05:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed. i plowed through the old history diffs a while back, and as i noted way above, the huge chunk of uncited criticism had been there for three years. that's an intolerable violation of basic WP policy. editors are obviously welcome to add back any notable criticism they believe belongs here - so long as it has a WP:RS to go with it. Anastrophe 05:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Uh... OK? Have you read WP:SPS? Noncontroversial SPS are acceptable when they are writing about themselves. Which citation are you looking to challenge? --- tqbf 10:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy" section 

message: I can't tell people how to spend their time (and it always pisses me off when other editors try to do it for me), but let me voice my opinion:
It is a waste of time arguing about whether IETF artifacts are reliable sources:
# Per WP:V, it is unlikely that any of these will be acceptable sources. People are not reliable sources, writing is. Reliable sources are writings published in venues with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Specifically excluded from this definition are venues composed primarily of opinions and personal beliefs. 
#:Per WP:SPS and WP:RS, since these are experts (published) - who are talking specifically within their area of expertise - your argument is wrong. --Kim D. Petersen 00:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: The rewording, "No qualifying vulnerability has been published" introduces an unsupportable POV: it is not resolved that Guninski's finding, which is in fact a textbook integer overflow (despite the extraordinary difficulty involved in exploiting it), does not qualify, only that Bernstein has opted not to pay for it. --- tqbf 04:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but that's POV as well. the reward challenge has always stated that he is the final arbiter as to whether an exploit qualifies for the reward. therefore, if his decision is that an exploit does not qualify - then it does not qualify. whether one likes that or not is immaterial. based upon the specific qualifications outlined in the reward challenge, "No qualifying vulnerability has been published" is 100% accurate. Anastrophe 17:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Strong disagree. The word "qualifying" is a clear judgement on the finding. The only fact we can report is that Bernstein has declined to pay. Consider that Bernstein could unfairly disqualify, say, an uninitialized stack variable vuln (perhaps claiming "nobody knew about these in 1998, unfair to fault me for them"), and by the same logic you just used, their finding would not "qualify". We're simply debating the word "qualify"; let's find a more neutral word. Also: the award is quite disputed, and I say this as huge Bernstein fan and a security practitioner. --- tqbf 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i have no disagreement that the award is disputed; however, characterizing it as simply 'bernstein declines to pay' is incorrect. pretend it's a creative writing sweepstakes. buried deep in the fine print, it says "entries that fail to capitalize the first letter of the first word of sentences are invalid, and will be disqualified". captain lazy-caps (that's me) submits an extraordinary first person account of my encounter with aliens. in all respects, it's perfect, but i fail to capitalize the first letter of the first word of sentences. i'm disqualified. i can bitch about it all i want, but the fact is, according to the terms of the sweepstakes, my entry did not qualify, so if i don't win, i can't say that the sweepstakes sponsor 'declined to pay' me. dammit, too much coffee this morning. Anastrophe 17:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (edit conflict) The difference between a sweepstakes and this contest is that the arbitrator published the criteria for qualification, and many (if not most) security practitioners agree that Guninski's finding qualifies. But that's how I'm characterizing on Talk, not in the article. I have no problem with rewording what's there now, but I have a real problem with wording it in a way that casts Guninski's finding in a negative light. It's a real finding, and a real mistake in the code. The only one, to my knowledge, ever found in a mainstream DJB package. It's a Big Deal. I've publicly offered to pay Guninski the $500 (thankfully, he hasn't taken me up on it). And again: I am a huge fan of Bernstein's. --- tqbf 17:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: i (or the coffee) decided to be WP:BOLD and integrate the reward info into the body as part of the guninski controversy. this should adequately mitigate the problems with it in the lede, since the wording can be eliminated as it's implicit. Anastrophe 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well played, sir! --- tqbf 17:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security vulnerability 

message: Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was Frets on Fire - a guitar playing game which has be the subject of software patent discussion in recent weeks.
For other interesting free software articles, you can take a look at the archive of PF's selectees. --Gronky (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Things moved on, as usual.  The new selectee is Wireshark - a packet sniffer which people concerned about security might be interested in. --Gronky (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Free software]]: qmail is now the selected article 

message: What is wrong with this edit ?  Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: did you read the edit summary? it isn't an improvement, particularly if you take the time to read more than just the first sentence. what are you trying to accomplish? Anastrophe (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sentence structure that appears correct, and this can be accomplished by simply restructuring the sentence without changing the meaning.  Are you averse to that? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: This actually gave me an idea, what do you think about a small section regarding why the author decided qmail as opposed to Qmail?  Do you think that would add to the article? NonvocalScream (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, it would be good to have it in the article. i'm sure it's discussed somewhere tho' offhand i don't know where. Anastrophe (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the author of the software states it in a source, I'll find it.  Once I do, I'll add it, and we can see if it fits.  If not, we can remove it.  NonvocalScream (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  requested edit 

message: Can anyone comment (find a citeable source) as to the most popular MTA to date for a unix system? Qmail? Postfix?  Maybe have a comparison for use of a programmer making a decision as to which MTA to go forward with. Security is mentioned but what about performance, usability...?
Snowmaninthesun (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Differences

message: What is it that makes qmail safe to stand the test of time? The answers at http://cr.yp.to/qmail/guarantee.html do not suffice to make a program safe. Have any formal methods been used to implement qmail? --Abdull (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret ingredient 

message: Qmail as released is seriously flawed. It accepts mail for non-existent recipients. Once it has determined the recipient doesn't exist, it sends a mail to the apparent sender. Spammers may therefore use an un-patched qmail essentially as a spam relay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_%28e-mail%29 . One would expect the standard distribution of Qmail to include patches which various people have written to combat the problem, however, it appears not: http://mirror.tje.me.uk/pub/mirrors/www.qmail.org/top.html#patches  . I suggest the article should have a criticisms section, outlining qmail's backscatter problem. More information can be found here to solve the problem: http://http.netdevice.com:9080/qmail/rcptck/  . I suggest it is reasonable to strongly recommend against using standard qmail (without patches), Even the current version 1.06. Nick R Hill (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backscatter 

message: Wouldn't it be a good idea to add IndiMail here? It's an updated and extended package, and after netqmail the second resurrection of qmail. I don't think it helps visitors/users to show netqmail as the most recent version, as it's hopelessly outdated and very hard (virtually impossible) to patch into an up-to-date system.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Offerman (talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  IndiMail 

message: QMail rather looks like a completely abandoned project, now an actual risk because of a number of severe security problems. At least the wording should reflect that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:EB20:1AC0:4032:50D3:22DC:A761 (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abandoned?! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Qmail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070211060645/http://ftp.netbsd.org:80/pub/NetBSD/packages/pkgsrc/mail/qmail/README.html to ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/packages/pkgsrc/mail/qmail/README.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070211060057/http://ftp.netbsd.org:80/pub/NetBSD/packages/pkgsrc/mail/qmail-run/README.html to ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/packages/pkgsrc/mail/qmail-run/README.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080723183108/http://qmail.faqts.com/ to http://qmail.faqts.com/
*Added  tag to http://home.pages.de/~mandree/qmail-bugs.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080923121814/http://xzdev.com:80/qmail_queue.html to http://xzdev.com/qmail_queue.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Little of the content in the "controversy" section actually qualifies as controversy, even in the most generous reading of the term. As well, little of the content is sourced. Based on the former point, the section should be renamed. To what, I do not know. Suggestions? The second matter is nearly as important as the first, however if it's unsourced, and not controversial vis a vis the Reasonable Person standard, shouldn't we just scrub the info? Anastrophe (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy" section 

message: Lede: It was written, starting December 1995, by Daniel J. Bernstein as a more secure replacement for the popular Sendmail program.
Standards compliance: qmail was not designed to replace Sendmail
Not sure how to resolve this. --Holzklöppel (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think whomever wrote the latter probably meant it in the sense of not being a 'drop in' replacement for sendmail. And actually, the lede sentence really should read "as a more secure alternative for the popular sendmail program".  cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it, thanks. --Holzklöppel (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article contradicts itself 

message: I WP:BLAR'd Quick Mail Queuing Protocol and Quick Mail Transport Protocol to this page. They can be expanded upon here, but I don't see any prospect for notability. Brought in a few links & basic explanations from those BLAR'd pages — DFlhb (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged