The original qmail was widely known for being very secure and fast. This implementation on the other hand, is apparently marketed using warez slang?
> Netqmail 1.06 is produced by this motley krewe
Notqmail: Collaborative open-source successor to qmail
11–20 of 31 posts
Re: Notqmail: Collaborative open-source successor to qmail
#12Somewhat related, have there any updates or a forked version of daemontools? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemontools http://cr.yp.to/daemontools.html I’ve been using parts of it for many many years without issue but it does feel odd that nothing has required an update in nearly 20 years. Maybe the Unix philosophy and DJB is just that good!
diff -Nur admin.orig/daemontools-0.76/src/supervise.c admin/daemontools-0.76/src/supervise.c
--- admin.orig/daemontools-0.76/src/supervise.c 2010-02-19 11:08:15.000000000 +0100
+++ admin/daemontools-0.76/src/supervise.c 2010-02-19 12:53:16.000000000 +0100
@@ -86,6 +86,8 @@
const char *run[2] = { "./run", 0 };
+int flagfailed = 0;
+
void trystart(void)
{
int f;
@@ -94,6 +96,7 @@
case -1:
strerr_warn4(WARNING,"unable to fork for ",dir,", sleeping 60 seconds: ",&strerr_sys);
deepsleep(60);
+ flagfailed = 1;
trigger();
return;
case 0:
@@ -153,6 +156,11 @@
}
}
+ if (flagfailed && flagwant && flagwantup){
+ flagfailed = 0;
+ trystart();
+ }
+
if (read(fdcontrol,&ch,1) == 1)
switch(ch) {
case 'd':
diff -Nur admin.orig/daemontools-0.76/src/supervise.c admin/daemontools-0.76/src/supervise.c
--- admin.orig/daemontools-0.76/src/supervise.c 2001-07-12 18:49:49.000000000 +0200
+++ admin/daemontools-0.76/src/supervise.c 2012-12-23 21:54:20.437771704 +0100
@@ -97,6 +97,8 @@
trigger();
return;
case 0:
+ setsid();
+ setpgid(0,0);
sig_uncatch(sig_child);
sig_unblock(sig_child);
execve(*run,run,environ);
@@ -158,7 +160,7 @@
case 'd':
flagwant = 1;
flagwantup = 0;
- if (pid) { kill(pid,SIGTERM); kill(pid,SIGCONT); flagpaused = 0; }
+ if (pid) { killpg(pid,SIGTERM); killpg(pid,SIGCONT); flagpaused = 0; }
announce();
break;
case 'u':
@@ -173,29 +175,29 @@
if (!pid) trystart();
break;
case 'a':
- if (pid) kill(pid,SIGALRM);
+ if (pid) killpg(pid,SIGALRM);
break;
case 'h':
- if (pid) kill(pid,SIGHUP);
+ if (pid) killpg(pid,SIGHUP);
break;
case 'k':
- if (pid) kill(pid,SIGKILL);
+ if (pid) killpg(pid,SIGKILL);
break;
case 't':
- if (pid) kill(pid,SIGTERM);
+ if (pid) killpg(pid,SIGTERM);
break;
case 'i':
- if (pid) kill(pid,SIGINT);
+ if (pid) killpg(pid,SIGINT);
break;
case 'p':
flagpaused = 1;
announce();
- if (pid) kill(pid,SIGSTOP);
+ if (pid) killpg(pid,SIGSTOP);
break;
case 'c':
flagpaused = 0;
announce();
- if (pid) kill(pid,SIGCONT);
+ if (pid) killpg(pid,SIGCONT);
break;
case 'x':
flagexit = 1;Re: Notqmail: Collaborative open-source successor to qmail
#13(not related to Qmail... but...)
Anyone who used http://xmailserver.org/ ? The project looks dead for many years now. We used the software on production Mail servers for years. It was very-simple to setup and use, and also very-very flexible.
There is also forum https://xmailforum.marketmix.com/ . I loved to read the forum daily :) 10 years ago.
I think the last feature added vas SSL support, back then in 2010. For me this is a masterpiece of software when it comes to mail servers. (I loved the minimalistic approach)
Re: Notqmail: Collaborative open-source successor to qmail
#14The original qmail was widely known for being very secure and fast. This implementation on the other hand, is apparently marketed using warez slang? > Netqmail 1.06 is produced by this motley krewe
Does using warez slang automatically make software less secure and slower?
Re: Notqmail: Collaborative open-source successor to qmail
#15Notqmail is a fork of Qmail, which "begins where netqmail left off".
A good description of their goals can be found on the wiki:
* https://github.com/notqmail/notqmail/wiki
> [Notqmail] will provide stable, compatible, small releases that do not conflict with or break your local site customization or the other software you run in your mail system. notqmail also aims higher: we are developing a qmail-derived system that is extensible, easily packaged, and increasingly applicable to a wide variety of modern needs
An idea of upcoming changes can be found on the roadmap:
* https://github.com/notqmail/notqmail/wiki/Release-Roadmap
There's also an interesting discussion of Notqmail, with responses from many of the team, on Lobste.rs:
* https://lobste.rs/s/2r3stk/notqmail_collaborative_open_sourc...
Re: Notqmail: Collaborative open-source successor to qmail
#16The original qmail was widely known for being very secure and fast. This implementation on the other hand, is apparently marketed using warez slang? > Netqmail 1.06 is produced by this motley krewe
Does using warez slang automatically make software less secure and slower?
It reduces confidence because warez is associated with running cracked software of which you don't know exactly what was modified/added/etc.
Re: Notqmail: Collaborative open-source successor to qmail
#17Somewhat related, have there any updates or a forked version of daemontools? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemontools http://cr.yp.to/daemontools.html I’ve been using parts of it for many many years without issue but it does feel odd that nothing has required an update in nearly 20 years. Maybe the Unix philosophy and DJB is just that good!
https://skarnet.org/software/s6/ is pretty much original daemontools with a couple additions
Re: Notqmail: Collaborative open-source successor to qmail
#18This would be great if some of the excellent components that work with qmail to make a nice email appliance also got updated. qmail with vpopmail and qmailadmin used to make a great email appliance, but previously the overhead of maintaining it made it un-usable long term so I ditched it for postfix+dovecote+postfixadmin but there was a lot to like about qmail+vpopmail+qmailadmin
I feel like everyone has moved on from qmail to postfix; I wonder who is still using qmail. I was a huge qmail fan back in the mid '90s, it was a breath of fresh air in comparison to sendmail. But by the 2000s it was feeling largely abandoned, had a lot of hoops you had to jump through, and Postfix was on the scene and had none of those disadvantages.
The last time I used qmail, it was quite a pain to collect up all the required patches and build, just to make a reliable MTA. I'm thinking things like the TCP DNS patch so you could send e-mail to AOL.
I realize netqmail came along later to try to fix this. I guess I had just assumed that everyone had moved on to postfix like I had.
Re: Notqmail: Collaborative open-source successor to qmail
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does using warez slang automatically make software less secure and slower?
It reduces confidence because warez is associated with running cracked software of which you don't know exactly what was modified/added/etc.
My how far we’ve come in such a short few years.
Re: Notqmail: Collaborative open-source successor to qmail
#20The original qmail was widely known for being very secure and fast. This implementation on the other hand, is apparently marketed using warez slang? > Netqmail 1.06 is produced by this motley krewe
Does using warez slang automatically make software less secure and slower?
It speaks to the priorities, attitude and / or the work ethics of the developers involved. I wouldn't trust people who care about using teenager slang and looking cool to write secure and efficient services that I could use in production with customer data. I may be wrong, but my confidence is still low.