From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 19 12:13:56 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B54CB16A4BF; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:13:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from priv-edtnes51.telusplanet.net (defout.telus.net [199.185.220.240]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9955B43FE3; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:13:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cpressey@catseye.mine.nu) Received: from kallisti.ca ([207.81.23.108]) by priv-edtnes51.telusplanet.netSMTP <20030919191355.RDCQ13702.priv-edtnes51.telusplanet.net@kallisti.ca>; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:13:55 -0600 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:16:12 -0700 From: Chris Pressey To: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) Message-Id: <20030919121612.4a31c1ae.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030918152942.5c7163df.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> <3F6A2A72.90405@tenebras.com> <20030919110638.5c282e06.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> Organization: Cat's Eye Technologies X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.8) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable cc: trhodes@FreeBSD.org cc: FreeBSD-stable@FreeBSD.org cc: FreeBSD-qa@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Mail selection options in sysinstall(8). X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 19:13:56 -0000 On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:20:56 +0200 des@des.no (Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav) wrote: > Chris Pressey writes: > > des@des.no (Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav) wrote: > > > No, because QMail needs patches to run correctly on FreeBSD (in > > > fact, it requires patches to run correctly on *any* system, > > > because DJB doesn't want to lose face by admitting that QMail > > > contains bugs, and therefore hasn't updated the official > > > distribution since mid-1998). > > Could you elaborate on that? Unless I'm mistaken, the only patches > > in/usr/ports/qmail/files are patches needed for qmail to *install* > > correctly - and all the WITH_*_PATCH options refer to optional > > patches. >=20 > Performance under high load will be abysmal if you leave out the > bigqueue patches, and you may also want to increase the hash size. > The latter is problematic because qmail built with one hash size can't > operate on a queue generated by qmail built with a different hash > size, so you need to be very careful when upgrading. I don't believe > the port allows you to change the hash size, though... That would be a nice touch. I still don't understand, though, is it a correctness issue, or a performance issue? My server is not under high load, and qmail sure seems to work correctly. Googling, the only plausible bug report I could find was that some OS'es interpret the IP address 0.0.0.0 to mean the local machine, and some disallow it as an illegal IP address. It seems that qmail's intention is that 0.0.0.0 is illegal (as it is on OpenBSD(?)) If that is not also the case for FreeBSD, that might mean a qmail binary distribution is out of the question (based on Dan's statement "If there's something about a system (compiler, libraries, kernel, hardware, whatever) that changes qmail's behavior, then that platform is /not/ supported, and you are /not/ permitted to distribute binaries.") -Chris