qmail doesn't *need* any patches [LWN.net]

qmail doesn't need any patches

Posted Nov 4, 2007 1:23 UTC (Sun) by xanni (subscriber, #361)
In reply to: qmail doesn't *need* any patches by njs
Parent article: Daniel Bernstein: ten years of qmail security

qpsmtpd is not "built on Apache".  One supported mode of operation is to run it under Apache
on the basis that many sites are already running Apache anyway and it is well-understood and
supported, but qpsmtpd has always had and continues to support several other modes of
operation including running under djb's daemontools or even under xinetd.

to post comments

qmail doesn't need any patches

Posted Nov 4, 2007 5:52 UTC (Sun) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link]

FWIW, I didn't mean 'built on Apache' as in 'runs as part of an Apache HTTPD'; Apache is in
part a very nice framework for writing generic server apps these days.  (Maybe this is
technically part of APR, I haven't followed where exactly they're drawing that boundary.)

On a further look, though, I see that you're right, when qpsmtpd is not running under httpd,
it uses a different home-brew network framework rather than APR.  I was misled by looking at
the first anti-malware plugin linked on their homepage:
  http://svn.perl.org/qpsmtpd/trunk/plugins/check_earlytalker
which contains a bunch of code using APR -- but it turns out that's because there are two
copies of all that code, one that works when being run under Apache and one that works with
the home-brew.  I don't know how typical this is of qpsmtpd's codebase, but it doesn't strike
me as The DJB Way either.

(If I were them, I'd consider just using Apache in all cases, even if it is a big hunk of
scary C that makes baby DJB cry, but I don't actually know what I'm talking about so *shrug*.)