From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 74689 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2020 17:05:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 74659 invoked by uid 89); 6 Feb 2020 17:05:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=opinions, HX-Languages-Length:855, DKIM, our X-HELO: us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com Received: from us-smtp-2.mimecast.com (HELO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com) (205.139.110.61) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 17:05:12 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1581008710; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=VrM9Yk1Rh2EniRwGM6VChklceJV+RHi3h2C3Y1Ex0GE=; b=iYTQ9Aw17yx8kNaY+poQ33ns9Y9rdoKq+R5ZrnhMS6SaPQA0klvhWksv2zS4SYaeN7/IQQ 9HlRCuEwvPzYdHkv9A85O+Jm+ZS/52s4MUgQ65bLhWKlewI787wdnUFuW0kb0wF4RMcGTY TdSwtXq019vTd2/f5ZoJw88FuHjXaug= Received: from mail-qv1-f70.google.com (mail-qv1-f70.google.com [209.85.219.70]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-156-xcpozMNSPfuDtGPjKb-NUw-1; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 12:04:54 -0500 Received: by mail-qv1-f70.google.com with SMTP id z9so4069167qvo.10 for ; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 09:04:54 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.1.4] (135-23-175-75.cpe.pppoe.ca. [135.23.175.75]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k37sm1035219qtf.70.2020.02.06.09.04.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Feb 2020 09:04:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Choice of distribution for new sourceware.org server? To: overseers@sourceware.org, Florian Weimer References: <74e963de-f7c8-33d0-d133-ada427c000a4@redhat.com> <20200206013050.GA16275@cgf.cx> <20200206060547.GA1868@cgf.cx> <20200206152023.GA13889@cgf.cx> From: Carlos O'Donell Message-ID: Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 17:05:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200206152023.GA13889@cgf.cx> X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2020-q1/txt/msg00078.txt On 2/6/20 10:20 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 09:50:20AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> On 2/6/20 1:05 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> I think I've just convinced myself to look into using postfix and >>> mailman. I'll try to do that in the next few days. >> >> I think switching to postfix would really be to our benefit, both >>from an upstream support, and long-term perspective. > > I'm very familiar with and very lukewarm about Postfix but it's what > everyone uses so... I have no strong opinions. I agree that everyone uses it. Postfix also has good support for modern SPF/DKIM/DMARC/SRS etc because others have run into this already. It didn't seem that straight forward to do all of this with qmail (except with some hackish scripts). -- Cheers, Carlos.