Subject: Re: Post.Office + NetBSD
To: Curt Sampson <>
From: David Hopper <>
List: port-i386
Date: 11/09/1996 00:43:25
> On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Chris G Demetriou wrote:
> > It's a joke that NetBSD claims binary emulation capabilities for the
> > various commercial OSes that it does, because you cannot use those
> > emulation capabilities unless you're licensed for the OSes in
> > question.
> I think that's a bit harsh. First, there do seem to be a fair number
> of statically linked binaries out there; Netscape is probably one
> of the most popular, and that's statically linked.

Agreed.  What NetBSD x86 user _isn't_ running Netscape?

> As far as this particular problem, SCO is now giving away a two-user
> version of their OS. You'd want to check their licencing conditions
> first, of course, but wouldn't this provide the libraries and
> whatnot needed for the original poster's problem.

Yup, I thought of that.  It seems that Post.Office supports every UNIX
pizza box under the sun, but BSDI is the sole x86 UNIX platform.  Perhaps
noise from the Linux & FreeBSD camps (not to mention ourselves) might 
change their porting strategy.

Actually, my problem was solved by relying on Qualcomm's qPopper.  No
fancy-schmantzy HTML administration forms, but hell, vi is keeping me
employed.  Besides, Post.Office was beginning to look like the Windows
NT of POP servers.  SMTP administration for people who shouldn't be
playing around with it in the first place  ;^)

> Curt Sampson		Info at

David Hopper ( :
Global Event Services, Inc. : Large Conference and Tradeshow Tech. Support 
NetBSD 1.2 Amiga ( : NetBSD 1.2 x86 (
"Two pale drops of fire guttering in the vast consuming darkness" -V. Price