|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Postfix (software) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
The main reason Postfix has not seen more widespread use is because it is not licensed under the GPL or BSD license. In fact the official website includes no information about its licensing scheme (Oct. 2003) in recognition of this weakness.
Is there any evidence for this complex and worried-sounding claim? Postfix is distributed under the IBM Secure Mailer license, which is BSD-like. This license's chief distinctions from BSD are its more extensive warranty disclaimers, and its liability requirements for commercial distributors. There is no sense in which this license is a "weakness" as far as I can tell, and the chief reasons that it isn't posted loudly on the Web site are (1) Postfix isn't ideological about licenses, and (2) the Web site is disorderly. I'm going to remove this claim if it can't be backed up. --FOo 14:31, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- As promised, I have removed the claim. With Postfix distributed on all Macintosh sytsems (and with Apple having become one of the major Unix vendors) there isn't even any basis to say that Postfix isn't "widespread"! --FOo 14:26, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- It's also distributed with NetBSD as an alternative MTA to sendmail. Though sendmail is still the default. --B1ff 13:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I just found recently that...
There was a very recent Wikipedia article that changed "postfixes" to "suffixes". Well, who would ever use "postfix"?? 220.127.116.11 01:45, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Masquerade domain in postfix
How come there is no news page detailing releases, not even a dedicated mailing list? 18.104.22.168 14:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
"One of the strengths of Postfix is its resilience against buffer overflows." Is there some specific reason for this in the way Postfix is implemented or is it just an empirical observation? As the article also says "Postfix's source code is often used as a famous example of good programming practice," it would be interesting to elaborate a bit. -- Coffee2theorems 11:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Does the article still need more citations for verification?
The article has a warning at the top that says that the text needs more citations to reliable source for verification. In recent months I restructured the text and added a ton of links. At this point I wonder what is fundamentally missing at this point. Any discussion of the characteristics of the Postfix software, its strengths and weaknesses, etc., will ultimately have to be supported by empirical, accurate, first-hand, observations. What are your criteria for establishing the reliability of those sources? Wietse venema (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I would like to discuss recent changes by user 22.214.171.124, this user repeatedly removes SMTP compliance of Postfix without sources . I must also mention his personal attacks in the comments. So I am opening a discussion about this here. Wolscmip (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)