Bug#415247: exim4 and exim4-debian maintainers too stupid and irresponsible

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 03:23:46PM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:

 adam, thank you for taking the time to reply.

> On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 13:12 +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > Package: exim4
> > Version: 4.24-3
> 
> You do realise that the version quoted above is nearly three and a half
> years old? It's even eight upstream releases older than the version in
> sarge.
 
 for report purposes, it'll do.  (on my live server i have the latest version).


> > this bug is in response to several bug reports which i have raised
> > regarding exim4, which are all to do with improving exim4.  each and
> > every such bug has been treated with derision.
> 
> As far as I can see, you've submitted two bug reports against the Debian
> exim4 packages in the past four years, both asking for a change to the
> default configuration which the maintainers disagreed with. That is
> their prerogative 

 it is NOT their prerogative to disagree.
 
 well, it is - if they want to abdicate the responsibility that goes
 with being a free software developer or maintainer.

 read the report.

 read _especially_ the fact that it goes into great detail comparing
 debian with ubuntu, as a case study.
 
 the bottom line is this: being a free software developer comes with
 the responsibility to be all things to all people.

 it is NOT the prerogative of free software developers to say "no, you
 cannot do that, because i do not like it, understand it, or agree with
 it".

 it's like bus routes being privatised, and the "unprofitable" routes
 being shut down.
 
 we are responsible for running a _public service_, not a corporation.

 
 so - EVERYTHING should be added (and disabled by default) so that
 people can CONVENIENTLY switch things on if they want to, instead of
 having to piss about.


> and there are established procedures which exist if
> you believe you have a good case to get a technical decision overturned.

 "a man convinced against his will, will be of the same opinion still."

 but i appreciate you letting me know that such procedures exist,
 because i did always wonder what i would do if something _really_ was
 important.


> Your public interaction with upstream appears to consist of a single
> thread on exim-users in February, in which you claimed exim was broken
> because it allowed an empty envelope sender to be used 

 i was under pressure to sort out a live problem where significant
 amounts of spam were getting through by someone sending faked empty
 envelope (due to me following advice to the letter that is written down
 in the exim4 cyrus22 HOWTO which is included in the debian cyrus
 package!)

 assigning the issue solely and exclusively to the "empty envelope
 sender" was a mistake in _my_ understanding, which (off-list)
 someone kindly corrected.

 based on that assistance and very kindly supplied information, i
 pursued the issue further, for a further sixteen hours.
 
 however, unfortunately, because that was a "known issue", and because i
 use cyrus22, all brains of the developers were then "switched off" due
 to excessive boredom at having to deal repeatedly with an issue which
 is claimed to be the fault of the cyrus22 debian maintainers.

 so, i further tracked the bug down to an issue in the LMTP transport
 handling of exim4, and endeavoured to demonstrate and/or fix the problem,
 using my LIVE server as the testing area because i didn't have access
 to a test machine at the time.

 the problem is this: i really _did_ find a bug - but because all
 developer brains by that time were assigned to /dev/null, nobody wanted
 to deal with it - or listen.

 so i figured "fuckit, fuck the whole thing, and fuck them."

 btw - in case you're wondering, i'm still trying to work out how to
 switch off my temper, which flips from zero to redline in about a
 quarter of a second, and get more patience.

 l.

-- 
--
lkcl.net - mad free software computer person, visionary and poet.
--