text:
Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive 1

Greenpeace survey
"Roughly half of scientists surveyed by Gallup and Greenpeace dispute the IPCC position."

Whoever added this, please provide
 * sources for the polls
 * margin of error and number of scientists surveyed
 * nature of the sample -- what kind of scientists were surveyed?

Otherwise I have to remove this statement. --Eloquence 12:46 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)

 * did you ever get those sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinHarper (talk • contribs) 12:16, 6 February 2003 (UTC)

 * No, and I removed the statement accordingly. --Eloquence 12:40 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Greenpeace survey
"Roughly half of scientists surveyed by Gallup and Greenpeace dispute the IPCC position."

Whoever added this, please provide
 * sources for the polls
 * margin of error and number of scientists surveyed
 * nature of the sample -- what kind of scientists were surveyed?

Otherwise I have to remove this statement. --Eloquence 12:46 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)

 * did you ever get those sources?

 * No, and I removed the statement accordingly. --Eloquence 12:40 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Source
I wish you had looked a little harder. Here is the source:

 * Greenpeace International surveyed 400 climate scientists, many of whom were involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and reported the 113 responses received as of late January 1992 (just prior to one of the climate treaty negotiation sessions). Asked if there is a serious risk of a runaway greenhouse effect under continued business-as-usual policies, 15 percent said probably, 36 percent possibly, and 53 percent probably not. Other questions involved opinions on the progress of climate negotiations and whether the work of climate scientists has been taken seriously enough. (See New Scientist, p. 19, Feb. 5, 1992.) A summary is available from the Greenpeace Global Warming Dept., 1436 U St. NW, S. 300, Washington DC 20009 (202-462-1177).

(William M. Connolley 19:53 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)) Having disliked that statement myself and been tempted to remove it, I shall, having read the above. Because:

 * The survey reported above was for 1992 - not relevant for discussing the 1995 report
 * The survey was about runaway greenhouse - this is irrelevant to the IPCC report which does not consider such a scenario.

BTW: I have serious doubts about the reliability of the SEPP survey too, especially after reading the above. But its still there for the moment.

 * Not any more. I traced it to 1991. See below. Martin 17:01, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Most scientists support 1995 report
Onwards: I've added a note to the discussion of the 1995 report to the effect that most (climate) scientists support it, but not vocally. Without that, the section is seriously biased, because it appeared to suggest that all support for IPCC came from politicians and all opposition from scientists. This is not so. The source is (a) pers comm - ie talking to scientists; and (b) the lack of complaints. A lot of peoples work went into the IPCC reports: if they felt misrepresented, they would have said so.

 * (SEWilco 15:28, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)) I see. How many of the (a) scientists have reviewed the IPCC reports which they support?  Expecting (b) complaints about IPCC reports from workers on the reports has several obvious problems, including the size of IPCC public relations and participants using IPCC publication to increase their professional value. [It doesn't seem to have stopped Lindzen. WMC].
 * However, the IPCC TAR itself indicates the SAR science had flaws: (here a few examples quickly found)
 * "Since the SAR, significant progress has been achieved in better characterising the direct radiative roles of different types of aerosols. Direct radiative forcing is estimated to be -0.4 Wm-2 for sulphate, -0.2 Wm-2 for biomass burning aerosols, -0.1 Wm-2 for fossil fuel organic carbon and +0.2 Wm-2 for fossil fuel black carbon aerosols. There is much less confidence in the ability to quantify the total aerosol direct effect, and its evolution over time, than that for the gases listed above. Aerosols also vary considerably by region and respond quickly to changes in emissions."
 * "Since the SAR, major improvements have occurred in the treatment of water vapour in models, although detrainment of moisture from clouds remains quite uncertain and discrepancies exist between model water vapour distributions and those observed."
 * "Major improvements have taken place in modelling ocean processes, in particular heat transport."
 * "Coupled model simulation of phenomena such as monsoons and the NAO has improved since the SAR."
 * "Incremental improvements in the performance of coupled models have occurred since the SAR, resulting from advances in the modelling of the oceans, atmosphere and land surface, as well as improvements in the coupling of these components."

(William M. Connolley 21:30, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)) Yes, the SAR had flaws. So does the TAR. So do all reports. The question is, does that completely invalidate them, or not? It depends on how big the flaws were. Noting that the TAR improves on the SAR doesn't make the SAR worthless, as you seem to be trying to suggest.

 * Flaws in the SAR are significant because of their use as supporting material for a little meeting in Kyoto... (SEWilco 18:22, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC))

The "Not Rocket Scientists" Defense
At the moment I can't find it... A climatologist pointed out that the field wasn't all that popular, so the brightest scientists went into physics, chemistry, and now computer science. So the opinion of climatologists is the opinion of lesser scientists, says the climatologist. :-) (SEWilco 17:20, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC))

(William M. Connolley 21:17, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)) I think what you are looking for is "Indeed the most difficult problem of astronomy becomes simplicity itself when compared with the extraordinarily complex agents that are in operation even in the simplest meteorological phenomenon" - R S Ball, Lowndean Prof of Astronomy and Geometry, University of Cambridge (1893).

IPCC impartiality
I'm not sure who to attribute this to:
 * The SEPP, however, is not an impartial organisation...

 * (William M. Connolley 19:19, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)) Me

but IMHO the IPCC itself is not an impartial organization. I believe it was created solely to lobby on behalf of the global warming treaty and would never willingly report objectively on climate change or the global warming theory. --Uncle Ed 14:02, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 19:19, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)) But thats the problem: it *is* just your O. Have you actually managed to find something that the IPCC reported non-objectively? What I've been thinking of doing, and someone else is welcome to beat me to this, is to compare IPCC and SEPP reporting of some topic: the MSU stuff would be an obvious example. Because, as you say, trading opinions back and forth isn't worth a great deal; but a decent analysis is.

 * (William M. Connolley 21:30, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)) BTW, Ed, a question for you: you clearly think the IPCC is biased. Do you think any of the "skeptic" organisations are unbiased? Where do you go for your unbiased info, which is clearly in contradiction to IPCC, though in unspecified ways.

--D. Franklin 04:20, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) Uncle Ed: nice work Nancy Drew: of course the IPCC is, as you claim "biased." What would be the point of a scientific committee if it didn't take a final stance for its report?! Enough of this foolish obsession with NPOV!

SEPP problems

 * (William M. Connolley 19:39, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)) So, to gather a few quotes from SEPP:

 * They aren't very up to date: their IPCC comments, haven't been updated sine the 1996 SAR. And this is one of their "key issues". So key, taht haven't bothered to upgrade to the TAR... why not, one wonders?
 * Side issue: their take on Ozone Depletion in - always a useful sanity test.
 * On their key issues page they state: "Computer models forecast rapidly rising global temperatures, but data from weather satellites and balloon instruments show no warming whatsoever". This isn't true. It may have been when the page was written, but since its undated we can't know.
 * On page SEPP sez: "It is colder now than it was 1,000 years ago.". They don't give any source. Its (probably) not true: the only records going back that far say otherwise.
 * Etc etc.
 * Another one: look at SEPPs board of advisors . One of them is Sir William Mitchell. He is DEAD . Is SEPP doing science by Oiuja (sp?) board?
 * And so is William A. Nierenberg . Good grief, being on SEPPs board looks like its bad for your health.

Needs more work...

 * move to talk:SEPP? Martin

IPCC climate effect damage
The IPCC concluded that 3.5 BILLION people would be affected, directly or not, by the anticipated effects of climate change. This was by sea level rise, increased disease due to rising temperature and disrupted ecosystems, extreme weather, and loss of arable agricultural land due to any of these. This should be in here somewhere. They had a nice chart showing who'd be affected, when.

 * (SEWilco 04:38, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)) The IPCC has several projects and reports. Look at their structure and you'll see that this article could have sections for their tasks, such as risks, effects, reduction, and mitigation.  The results could be summarized in there.  Or just mention the types of information and people can look up the details.

Interested party source issue

 * There's a problem using a single source. Especially when that source is lobbying on behalf of a law or treaty involving tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. If a corporation made a statement on an issue affecting its profits, we would all look sceptically at such a statement as coming from an "interested party". Well, I maintain that the IPCC is an interested party. They are not objective. They've been caught several times twisting the facts, leaving out inconvenient data and so on. --Uncle Ed 21:05, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Interest of the IPCC

 * What is the interest of the IPCC? ExxonMobil has an obvious motive. What is the IPCC trying to do? They're a bunch of geeks who meet in hotels and have marathon literature-browsing sessions together. Maybe they're doing it for the glitz, the glamor of being in the world spot-light, but this doesn't seem especially compelling to me, since very few people have any clue who the hell any of them actually are... they've just made the acronym famous. Graft 21:12, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * (SEWilco 04:15, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)) Don't confuse the IPCC with its participants. The IPCC is an organization with an existence which is separate from the non-employee workers on its reports.  The IPCC may try to keep itself in existence.  Its participants might be under a "publish or perish" situation, where their job performance is rated higher when their name is on a report.

 * (SEWilco 04:15, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)) As for the IPCC interest: [Principles Governing IPCC Work] from [About IPCC].
 * "2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies"
 * Emphasis added to focus on the primary role: The role of the IPCC is to assess ... information relevant to ... risk of human-induced climate change ... impacts and options. If there is no human-induced climate change, the existence of the IPCC is threatened.  The IPCC could still do its tasks of studying impacts and options, but the interest in IPCC's results would be reduced.  If that is read as "risk of climate change", then the IPCC could still   produce reports about impacts and options of climate change no matter what the reason for a change, as they just have to make plans in case there is a change.

UNFCCC+IPCC+Kyoto & Money motivation
(SEWilco 16:58, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)) Here's another opinion about the IPCC agenda:

 * Cutting in here: it's an SEPP opinion: see that article for details on who the SEPP are. Martin 22:19, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * In particular, UNEP organized the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is both a document and another UN organization. UNEP makes clear that the IPCC was organized in 1988 to provide the scientific framework for the 1992 UNFCCC. Likewise, the 1995 IPCC Second Assessment Report was the primary input into the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (to the UNFCCC). In fact, the UNFCCC says explicitly that the IPCC is its mandatory scientific source and provides the tasking for the IPCC.

 * Moreover, though not widely reported in the U.S., Article 4 of the UNFCCC requires developed countries to pay all the developing countries' costs of mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. On paper at least, they stand to get huge sums for "capacity building" and "technology transfer", the UN jargon for developed-country climate subsidies to the third world. The developing countries are well aware of this as yet unfulfilled promise of riches.

 * The promised UNFCCC largesse is predicated on the principle of dangerous human influence on climate (Article 2). And UNEP has repeatedly stated its acceptance of this principle. Given this organizational (and funding) nexus, one can hardly believe that the (UN)IPCC is neutral or unbiased.

 * In fact, the Preface to the 1995 Second Assessment report from Working Group I ("The Science of Climate Change") is quite candid. It says that "...the underlying aim of this report is to provide objective information on which to base global change policies that will meet the ultimate aim of the FCCC - expressed in Article 2 of the Convention..." Thus, it is clear that the IPCC is never going to contradict, or even weaken, Article 2 of the FCCC.

IPCC twisting the facts? Who sez so?

 * (William M. Connolley 21:52, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)) Who says IPCC is lobbying? Just you? Who says IPCC is twisting the facts? You? SEPP? Come on, provide something more solid.

 * (SEWilco 04:25, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)) WMC, you've seen references to several people who say IPCC is twisting the facts. [I have? I've seen you, EP, SEPP and Lindzen. The only one with any credibility is L. Who are the others of the "several"? WMC] There was a reference in what you last reverted -- do others here have opinions about the issue? How many others have seen such references?  (Oh, great.  Another popularity contest to determine reality?)
 * * The IPCC Summary for Policymakers for TAR Science Working Group Chapter 7 does not agree with the report's more detailed Executive Summary. see IPCC TAR Summary Conflict.
 * (William M. Connolley 18:43, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)) That page still needs a lot of work before it becomes meaningful and unbiased. At the moment, its impossible to separate your opinions from Lindzens opinions from anything that might be fact.
 * (SEWilco 16:52, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)) Fine, just open up windows yourself to the TAR WG1 SfP and Chapter 7 Executive Summary. How do the two compare? You'll have to skip over a lot of SfP measurements and predictions to find reference to climate science...try the 3rd page.
 * (William M. Connolley 21:30, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)) At the moment, your tar conflict page is so badly biased & laid out that I don't feel able to go in and improve it: I'd just be cutting out huge chunks. Its better left mostly unlinked, with a non-NPoV note at the top (which I see someone has added). If you care to present one or two carefully documented examples - the most important perhaps - then I'd look at that.
 * (SEWilco 08:16, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)) I only asked you to look at your own favorite source, the IPCC TAR.

Quantify Bogus Names
I made a few changes, some of which were necessary to present a NPOV — I fear I'm jumping into a bit of a mess with SEWilco causing trouble, but I think my changes are good (unlike his non-encyclopedic content). One thing someone might want to look into is this change I made: found that it contains a number of bogus names. I'd prefer if this was just a hard number. We should specify the number of bogus names and say what "bogus" means (people who aren't scientists, fake people, what?). I get a bit tired of all of the "some", "most", "many", "few" crap in controversial articles like this one. Daniel Quinlan 07:11, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

 * No, I'm just the target for trouble. Look further at my efforts and those of others.  The most noise I'm getting seems to be because my stubs are bigger than others use while they're creating content.  You have my history. -- SEWilco 18:54, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Aggregate external links
I should point out that we normally try to aggregate all external links in the "external links" section. Mixing external links into normal encyclopedia text should be avoided to reduce confusion.—Eloquence 11:12, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

 * Good idea, hadn't seen this recommendation before, but agree. Anyway, just moved the URL out of the title; it was already below. -- Viajero 13:20, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

 * I've seen hints at such a recommendation, but the reference pages were not clear of what is done how and when. There are other features seen casually mentioned that I can't find, so maybe I'm just not looking in an "obvious" place (no, not in Help). -- SEWilco 18:40, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * By "mixing external links", which usage are you referring to? -- SEWilco
 * Google
 * Google

Bogus names
We must address the issue of how the bogus names got in there.

 * Sure. Not here. Martin 17:53, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * Were they added by organizers, to pad the list?
 * Were they added by opponents:
 * to show "how easy it would be" for the organizers to pad the list?
 * to provide "evidence" to discredit the list?

Anyway, the whole issue of "who endorses the science", while fascinating and possibly relevant, really should take a back seat to the science itself, shouldn't it? I'm mortally tired of all the back and forth between Clinton Administration officials saying "the science is settled" and various environmentalists and organizations saying things like "this is the hottest year in recorded history, so global warming is real" and "sign the Kyoto Protocal now, before it's too late!".

What I've been hoping for, these last 2 years (!), is a neutral article on global warming -- one which would explain the ideas so clearly that a six-year-old child could understand it and make up their own mind as to who or what was right. And for 2 years, I've been consistentely disappointed.

I think that advocacy within the Wikipedian community has retarded the progress toward making a neutral article. Enough contributors, with enough time and energy, have consistently promoted the view that global warming is a clear and present danger which is certainly caused by human activities which release too much greenhouse gas. The zeal with which opposing views are removed from the relevant articles verges on censorship, and this disturbs me.

What's so fearful about letting Lindzen's views be aired? Who would be hurt by letting Balunias's research be presented? Why should SEPP's analyses, surveys and reports of dissenting voices be dismissed? Because we know global warming is real? That's not neutrality, that's advocacy.

I haven't put my foot down, for one simple reason. I am a developer-rank sysop, and I must not even appear to be "POV" in any controversy, lest I lose my "moral authority". So all I can really do is humbly beg, like anyone else, for some neutrality here.

Please, let's be neutral. --Uncle Ed 14:33, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Don't know yet

 * There isn't a simple explanation of "who is right" about human-caused global warming because there isn't any. We don't know enough climate science and probably don't have enough data for predictions.  The pro-warming and anti-warming groups have their own agendas.  The true skeptics are pointing out the bad science whereever it is and continuing to wade through the scientific method to learn what is happening.  Obviously things are happening -- climate changes, as does weather (except for "ecological nostalgia" followers who think everything has always been a certain way until it was disturbed). Eventually someone might figure out why things are happening. -- SEWilco 18:35, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Theory, not fact, campaign
While some degree of scientific uncertainty surrounds the causative factors in the process of global warming, it must not be forgotten that the fossil industry has spent millions of dollars to discredit global warming as "theory, not fact". This organized public relations campaign obscures and permeates all scientific discussions on the subject, and any argument needs to be tracked to its source. Public relations stunts such as the Leipzig Declaration need to be exposed as such.—Eloquence 18:43, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

 * Gee, you sound as if you know it is a fact. The concept of humans affecting global warming has to meet the requirements of a SEWilco 08:37, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ed touches all the bases on controversies
Martin, I think you are right about the relevancy of links.

Eloquence, I think you are right (in general!).

SEWilco, I think your attitude is helpful.

It seems to me that the whole global warming controversy is a test case for the Wikipedia's NPOV policy. How are we to report about an on-going scientific investigation? What is the relationship between 'objectivity' and 'neutrality'? Is there any way to distinguish between a truly impartial source of information and an "interested", biased source?

If there's a well-organized or well-financed public relations campaign, what does this mean in regards to the truth or falsehood of the campaign's object? Arabs spill a lot of ink and spend a lot of money convincing the world that Zionism is racism, but neither their ink nor their money can convince me that my Jewish mom or my Jewish grandad are racists. My church has spent nearly 50 years working full-time to convince people that Rev. Moon is the Messiah; does this devotion indicate a fanatic urge to prove a canard or unswerving dedication to God's truth? (Don't answer that!)

Democrats and Democrat-dominated media reported for the better part of a decade that "the science is settled", while others including "industry-supported" groups reported just the opposite.

Here's the big question: does the amount of money, time or ink spent trying to convince the public have a bearing on the truth of any matter? Is industry automatically wrong because they have an economic interest in proving their point? In the case of tobacco, I think they were doing a cover-up. In the case of global warming, I think not. But does the Economic Factor really have a bearing?

Maybe we need a completely different way to write about controversies... --Uncle Ed 15:03, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Maybe we need a few less red herrings and a genuine effort to either (a) contribute readable, factual text that is relevant to the particular topic at hand, or (b) stop buggerising about trying to make articles on cruically important subjects unreadable in order to push a partizan point of view. Tannin

 * Looking for the SEPP survey on CC1995: came across a 1991 survey. I think that's the one they're referring to, so I'm moving the paragraph appropriately. And rolling my eyes somewhat... Martin 16:45, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

IPCC objectivity challenged
The IPCC's claims of "objectivity" have been challenged by scientists at NASA, MIT, and Harvard.

Although the IPCC said they "proved" their novel climate change theory in 1992, NASA scientists released data in 1999 which clearly contradicted this theory. --Uncle Ed 21:50, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * That would be why this article does not say "The IPCC is objective", then? Martin 21:54, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * Oh, am I beating a dead horse again? Sorry. Nice horsie :-) --Ed

 * The horse will be resurrected. People keep inserting objectivity comments in various articles. -- SEWilco

 * Ed, which is the IPCC "novel" climate change theory? So many things have been contradicted that I don't know which is being referred to.  Particularly as each IPCC report states that the previous one was awful.  SEWilco 18:27, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I think I was unconsciously quoting SEPP. I meant the theory that more CO2 will heat up the air too much. And, btw, good point about each IPCC bad-mouthing the previous one. What does that remind me of? Oh, yes: Soviet regimes each repudiating the "excesses" of the previous regime. Where is the honesty? The selfless devotion to the public good? (Okay, I admit I have a LOT OF TROUBLE maintaining my cool about the GW controversy...) --Uncle Ed 16:54, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * Read Climate Change 1995 (The Science of Climate Change): The IPCC says "There are still many uncertainties" and "Climate is expected to..." and "The balance of evidence suggests..." - and that's right at the top of the summary. Science is always a work in progress. That's why every IPCC report notes areas of improvement since the last report, and it's why every IPCC report notes areas of uncertainty. Martin 17:47, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

-

(William M. Connolley 20:28, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)) I've changed "most" to "a few" in the scientists-who-criticise-ipcc section. This is because I've actually counted the lead and co-ord authors (4/10/10/11/12/11/9/11/10/10/9/8/6/6/4; check my math) for each of the chapters 1-14 of the wg1 report, and compared that to those who have complained (2: lindzen and christy (from the dubious webace page; are others available from elsewhere); note that manning doesn't "count" here cos he's just an author; if you want to inc him and get it up to 3 you have to add in all the authors to the 120).

IPCC Objectivity
I've thought about Global Warming and the IPCC over the weekend, and I think I'd rather stay on vacation!! It mainly seems to hinge on whether the IPCC is an "objective" source. Its website promotes the need for objectivity, anyway. But it also seems to reveal that it's already made up its mind that CO2 is the devil and the Kyoto Protocol is the answer to the world's prayers.

So my question is whether:
 * they are still objectively trying to discern whether CO2 emissions have caused/will cause a discernible temperature increase; or
 * they are actively promoting the view that CO2 emissions do cause discernible temperature increases. --Uncle Ed 14:24, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * Objectivity is not incompatible with making up your mind, provided that you are always willing to revise your opinions in the light of further evidence. The IPCC's record shows that they are willing to revise past published opinions, or else SEWilco would not be able to have such fun pointing out differences between earlier and later reports. Martin 15:17, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * As Kyoto was based on the SAR, and TAR points out the significant progress and uncertainties in the SAR, I await the Kyoto Protocol update which reflects that significant progress and uncertainty. --SEWilco 20:39, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * The uncertainties in the SAR were also pointed out by the SAR itself (which you knew, I'm sure) Martin 20:59, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Having fun and writing a neutral article aren't necessarily incompatible. I guess we'll get something new with each roll of the dice... --Uncle Ed 15:49, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 17:32, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)) You seem to be very sure that IPCC aren't objective. Up above in "IPCC objectivity challenged" you appear to admit to unconsiously quoting SEPP, assuming the attributions are correct. So, I would ask you:
 * Are you under the impression that SEPP are objective?
 * If not (one would hope not), does it worry you that you appear to have unconciously adopted their opinions?
 * What exactly is your source for "IPCC is biased"?

The asnwer to the your question above (are they still objectively trying to discern CO2 effects) is yes, they are, and being objective. Which leads to:

(WMC attribution at start of above section)
 * Have you read or skimmed the relevant sections of the IPCC report?
 * If you have, which bits look non-objective to you?
 * If you haven't, errr..., isn't that a bit embarassing?

Indeed, many people haven't been reading the documents.

Up above in Interest of the IPCC I pointed out that studying climate change is the IPCC's reason for existing.
 * The IPCC must report the risk, impact, and options related to human-induced climate change. Its assesment is not required to include info not related to the risk (I'm not saying it hides non-warming info, but it does not have to evaluate what is thought to not be relevant to human climate change), so IPCC info is not required to have all climate science info.

 * No. This is false, because *all* cl ch info (for the "recent" past) is relevant to assessing the risk of future climate change. How does one assess whether the current change is unusual? By examining past cl ch (WMC).

 * (cont) The impact and options studies are for contingency plans, whether they are needed or not. The IPCC can exist if it finds no risk (it has to keep watching), and it can continue issuing its assessment and impact reports in case they are needed.
 * The UNFCCC (parent of the Kyoto Protocol) requires some developed countries to pay undeveloped countries for all costs related to climate change which is caused by humans. (When reading the UNFCCC, note that the Definitions section defines "climate change" as climate change caused by humans.)

 * Irrelevant to IPCC (WMC)

-- (SEWilco 20:39, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC))
 * UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocols require monitoring and reporting various climate statistics. At least some climatologists will have to do that work.  Developing countries will be paid to do that work, so the climatologists in such countries have an "industry" interest in the continuing need for such monitoring.

 * At the moment, the vast bulk of "climate" type funding goes to the "western" world. I don't see that changing (WMC).

William, I regard SEPP as the most objective source of information on global warming. Like the IPCC, they have made their mind up. Unlike the IPCC, however, they have actually made an effort to find out whether or not emissions of CO2 and so forth have actually led to any discernable warming.

 * Well, I find this pretty weird. You're entited to your opinions but you're wrong. I can't understand how you can read the IPCC reports and still think this. [WMC].

Despite having received some help from my church early on, and exactly one donation from an "energy company", SEPP aren't beholden to any interests: political or economic. The guy who started it helped NASA develop its satellite-based program of measuring the earth's atmospheric temperature. Also, I think his connection to my church's Science Conference is a sign of objectivity: who else but someone interested in truth would dare be associated with a 'cult' and risk being tarred with the same brush? (My answer: only a scientist who considers knowledge more important than reputation)

 * Your church is irrelevant. I don't even know what it is (don't tell me: I don't care). SEPP is beholden to Singer. Singer is biased.

You really have to wade through a lot of statistics to get a clear picture. I think SEPP (and to some extent Lomborg) make a good case that the IPCC suppresses statistics that shed doubt on the theory they espouse. Have they mentioned temperature measurements made from weather balloons? How often do they check the predictions made by their "models" against temperature readings made AFTER those predictions? How much emphasis do they place on Balunias's work with solar variability?

 * This is pathetic. You criticise IPCC in total and utter ignorance. Have they mentioned weather ballons? Of course they have. Go to the wiki IPCC article, a the bottom (stupidly, someone moved the refs) is a link to the TAR; go to "obs ch"; go to upper atmos. Or just go to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/059.htm. Now, please, learn something about IPCC before you criticise it. For solar, see: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/213.htm.

 * So: show me where SEPPs evaluation of these matters is.

I think the IPCC exists not "to study climate change" but primarily or even solely to garner support for the Kyoto Protocol. Tens of billions of dollars are at stake, maybe even 100s of billions. The US would never reduce its energy consumption, it would just do "emissions trading", thus not reaching any Kyoto "targets" but funneling Immensely Huge Amounts of money to third world countries.

 * This is just your opinion. Unsupported by evidence, it worthless.

People who aren't "objective" are generally into money, power, or power over money. SEPP doesn't look like it's interested in any of these. The IPCC, run entirely by UN member nations' appointed representatives looks like it's about something other than disinterested scientific objectivity. Blocs of UN members have managed to get Zionism declared as racist (the Arab bloc). Why not get carbon dioxide declared a pollutant? There's a lot of money up for grabs.

 * Oh good grief. Stick to climate, at least here.

You asked, I answered. My cards are on the table. Care to lay down yours? Or should we just get back to making a mutually-satisfying, NPOV article? --Uncle Ed 16:23, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

 * I "support" the IPCC consensus: in the sense that I believe that it reflects the consensus of scientific work (William M. Connolley 17:15, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT); and above).

L's un-missing caveats, and models discussion
(William M. Connolley 17:31, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)) SEW attempted to bolster L's criticisms by failing to find support for the positive model statements in the overall exec summary within the summary of ch 7. Thats because he should have been looking in ch 8. So I did...

 * (SEWilco 15:36, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)) I see what happened. We haven't found a way to describe a glass with water at the midpoint, so one of us is saying it is half-full while the other is saying it is half-empty.
 * You looked for support of models, while I looked for support of L's statement that ch 7 shows that the models aren't treating well the known processes. You're looking at the successes of models, while I'm looking at the uncertainties and weaknesses in the science which is needed for simulation.

 * (William M. Connolley 16:00, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)) No. You inserted L's claim that the sumary didn't include caveats. I looked at the text and discovered - surprise - that caveats were there. We're doing textual analysis, not science.

 * (SEWilco 08:09, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)) I interpret
 * This chapter dealt with the nature of the basic processes which determine the response of climate, and found numerous problems with model treatments
 * as meaning the chapter dealt with two issues:
 * This chapter dealt with basic processes, and also found problems with model treatment of processes
 * while I think you interpret it as:
 * This chapter about basic processes found problems with model treatment of processes

 * This is silly. L comlained of lack of caveats in the summary. I pointed out that there *are* caveats in the summary, addressing the very points he asks for caveats upon.

 * (SEWilco) I think that's caused by the different interpretations of the phrasing.
 * If you read it as ch 7 found science problems and problems with model use of science then the one-sentence summary seems to gloss over the many problems in the basic science, including that needed by models..
 * If you read it as ch 7 found problems with model use of science then the caveats from ch 8 are sufficient.

 * You think top-down is fine, where a model which produces an expected result is a success, and then more details can be added to the model so as to replace estimates with simulations of known processes.

 * No. Models are built using the best available physics and computational resources. When better are available, they are put in. They are analysed on that basis.

 * Yes, so the best physics are used, but details are omitted due to resource restrictions or unknowns. (SEWilco)

 * Thats what I said "...and computational resources".

 * OK, so we agree that models have implementation limits. (SEWilco)

 * I think you believe the top-level results are already OK, while I think they're not based on enough detail

-- such as the problems with the major greenhouse gas, water vapor.

 * I stated what I think one of our differences of beliefs is. I shouldn't have introduced another issue at this point. (SEWilco)

 * You seem to think that repeating "water vapour" as though its a magic charm will do something. It won't. If you think there are problems with water vapour, then find them, and write intelligibly about them.

 * That is one of the issues which ch 7 points out have many unknowns in the basic science, which are missing in the single-sentence summary. Let's deal with that later, and get back to the L issue. (SEWilco)

 * Some models are on slow equipment so some processes are replaced with simpler estimates or averages (actually, in the case of flux adjustments, TAR says models without them emerged only "recently").

 * If you knew about climate models, you would know when they emerged, and not have to rely on vagueness like "recently".

 * The IPCC considers "recently" sufficient. I saw no need to assemble a multiproject milestone history.  And how much I know about simulations is only relevant in an ad hominem exchange.  At the moment I'm trying to determine where our semantic nets differ so we can find what should be explained to readers. (SEWilco)

 * As L mentions, atmospheric models still have cloud and humidity problems.  Ocean and land difficulties are also in ch 8.  And additional resolution is still desired, but limited by computational resources.  But then, everyone is limited by computational resources, and we can't requisition a planet on which to run a simulation.

 * Yes: this is the point: IPCC (and the scientists whose work they are using) are honest about the limitations of the models. Which makes L's complaints all the odder.

 * I think more bottom-up is needed, where the processes which cause climate have to be understood better before simulations can be built which can produce trusted results.

 * You want delay.
 * Surely you don't want the Kyoto design to be implemented, based on obsolete and incomplete science? Do MTBE, Rabbit_(ecology), water hyacinth  and kudzu mean anything to you?  Several were acted upon by experts; I don't know what was considered in releasing rabbits for hunting.

 * If you want to talk about Kyoto, do it on the Kyoto page.

 * I was stating two viewpoints of the situation to see if I had found a reason for different POV about L's statement. I think we're wandering from the understanding of this issue to more general issues.  I'll mark with STRIKE my suggestion that this be ignored. (SEWilco)

 * For example, a lunar-landing simulation can succeed by having rocket thrust be based upon the current height and amount of fuel &mdash the craft will oscillate up and down in the process, but a little additional calculation based on speed can dampen that out, and this can be refined further to produce a desired behavior. Or the calculation can be based upon the underlying science, from the formulas for calculating acceleration, gravitational attraction, and knowing engine thrust abilities, thus planning the engine thrust for the entire trip.  The former approach takes less calculation but is harder to adjust when changing between goals of minimal fuel use or constant deceleration.  The latter approach requires knowing enough about the relevant physics and engineering.

 * For example, a lunar landing could be done based upon 1960's and 1970's technology, with levels of cost and safety appropriate to those times. Or, one could say: why bother? In 10 years time we could do it cheaper and safer: lets delay. Then do the same, ad infinitum.

 * Hmmm... no answer?

 * Too many issues in converting from the simulation context to the implementation context.

 * Do we agree that we can't plan on solutions with future technology?Climate has to be understood, and I think we disagree about how much detail is needed. (SEWilco)

 * Putting a rocket engine on Jupiter and moving it to Alpha Centauri may work if you only know about the ecliptic and having to turn around when halfway there. But there are advantages to using Newtonian and relativistic physics to calculate what will happen when.  And the results might depend upon whether you know that some radiation shielding will be needed, and if you don't even know that is a factor then the result is based on another random factor (luck).

to Martin
You removed my comment that SEPP had raised no issues with the TAR. But you failed to replace it with the issues that they had raised. So what are they? I can find none on their web site. Do tell. (William M. Connolley 16:07, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)).

 * I just did a google search of their site - they've talked about it a fair bit.

 * OK, I started at the top and tried to find a link to it, and failed.

 * That's why Google is needed - there's a lot of stuff in archives for The Week That Was which are not linked to by topic. (SEWilco)

You also removed the para showing that SEPP had used misleading/inappropriate surveys to support their position. Why? (William M. Connolley 16:07, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)).

 * More relevant at SEPP than here, no? Martin

To Ed
(William M. Connolley 18:58, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)) Ed: you added "It is governed by a board appointed by representatives of UN General Assembly members who are part of WMO and UNEP.". Whats your source for that? I'm not saying its wrong, but isn't obviously compatible with http://www.ipcc.ch/about/chart.htm

 * The IPCC website does not clearly state who's behind it. I had to use other sources.

 * Yes, but what are they? At the moment, its a sourceless statement that appears to contradict what the IPCC say. Unless you can source it, it should be replaced with what they say.

 * I've added my best guess.

And: you added "yet it has been accused of misrepresentation, bias and violations of generally accepted scientific methodology." This reads to me like weasel words.

 * I've toned that down a bit, and I see you've added "some of the sci whose work is summ". Good. But still, who do you mean? Are you including Lindzen? Is his work in there? Not that I know. S+C? Who?

 * If it sounds weasel-worded, by all means delete or fix it. The last thing I want to do is overstate my case. I trust you to be objective ^_^ --Uncle Ed 20:10, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Aha... I'll see what I can do, though not for a day or two.

(SEWilco 17:11, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)) Ed, perhaps your board is the IPCC Bureau and Chair which are elected in the IPCC plenary sessions? http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm (see Organisational Structure) If not, you should mention the board's relationship with the IPCC Chair or Bureau.


text:
Charles A. Gillespie Jr.

Charles Anthony Gillespie Jr. (March 22, 1935 – March 7, 2008) was a United States career diplomat who helped to open the first United States Embassy in Grenada. He later served as the United States Ambassador to Colombia and the United States Ambassador to Chile.

Gillespie spent over thirty years in the United States foreign service as a specialist in Latin American and Caribbean affairs. Many of his foreign assignments were to Latin American countries experiencing domestic strife. For example, Gillespie served as the interim Chargé d'Affaires during the 1983 United States Invasion of Grenada as well as in Colombia from 1985 until 1988, when the government sought to crack down on the illegal drug trade in Colombia and the Colombian drug cartels. Gillespie often received daily death threats from the Colombian cartels.

Early life
Charles A. Gillespie Jr. was born on March 22, 1935, in Long Beach, California. He received his degree from UCLA in 1958. He later studied at the Maxwell School of Public Affairs at Syracuse University and the National War College in Washington, D.C.

Career
Gillespie served as a United States Army officer in Europe from 1958 until 1962. He began his career in the Foreign Service in 1965, when he was made regional security officer at the Embassy of the United States in Manila in the Philippines. He was later posted in a variety of positions around the world including the United States NATO mission, Mexico City and Managua, Nicaragua.

Gillespie served as the deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Caribbean and deputy for operations in the State Department's Inter-American Affairs Bureau from 1983 to 1985. Through this position he oversaw the opening of the first American embassy in St. George's, Grenada. Gillespie was involved in the planning of the invasion of Grenada in October 1983. It was the first major U.S. military operation since the Vietnam War. The invasion by the United States and several Caribbean nations led to the overthrow of the Grenadan military government which had executed Grenadan Prime Minister Maurice Bishop. Approximately 100 people, including 19 members of the United States armed forces were killed in the invasion.

His last posting as an ambassador was to Chile towards the end of the Augusto Pinochet regime from 1988 to 1991.

Gillespie headed the United States public relations task force to gain Congressional support for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Retirement
Gillespie retired from the United States Foreign Service in 1995. He became a principal member of The Scowcroft Group, an international business consulting company founded by Brent Scowcroft, the former National Security Advisor.

Books
Gillespie co-authored the book Career Diplomacy: Life and Work in the U.S. Foreign Service with Harry W. Kopp. The book was published by the Georgetown University Press in October 2008.

Death
Charles A. Gillespie Jr. died of cancer at the age of 72 on March 7, 2008, at Scripps Memorial Hospital in La Jolla, California. He was survived by his children, Charles and Kristin, and three grandchildren. His wife, Vivian Havens, whom he had been married to for 45 years, died in 2003.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Charles A. Gillespie Jr.


text:
Talk:Cathy Tyson

Relation to Cicely Tyson?
in cathy tysons page it says she is not related to american actress cicely tyson yet i have just been looking at the british film institute website and it says there that she is her niece....so id like to know whos right,.

I do not think they are related. However, I have seen one source that says Cicely Tyson's parents immigrated to NYC from Nevis. Winter Maiden (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Place of birth
The first line states she was born in Kingston upon Thames; the infobox states Liverpool. Where was she actually born? F W Nietzsche (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cathy Tyson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210015720/http://sceneandheard.org/about_whoweare.html to http://sceneandheard.org/about_whoweare.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cathy Tyson


text:
Talk:Qmail

Wrong Title
The "wrong title" template should be removed because, grammatically, even words that are not normally capitalized are capitalized when they begin a sentence, paragraph or article. Thus, what is usually spelled "qmail" should be "Qmail" at the top of the article and whenever it begins a sentence.

qmail is a proper name, and is formally spelled all lowercase. The title of the article is incorrect, the software package name is qmail, never Qmail. The 'wrong title' template must remain. Anastrophe 07:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Licensing
"As a consequence, some Linux distributions will not install..." This is also true on other open source operating systems, such as OpenBSD (see Re: Why were all DJB's ports removed? No more qmail?). Perhaps replace "Linux distributions" with "open source operating systems" or something similar? --204.239.167.96 18:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since it is definitely something you can cite, go for it! — RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 18:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully I've made a decent edit, my only concern is the four citations that could be trimmed down. I will spend some time reading up on style before trying anything major. 204.239.167.96 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy" section to be removed
it's been tagged - appropriately - for quite some time. it's loaded with weasel words. there isn't a single citation of source within it. if someone desires to improve the section by finding some reliable sources, and de-weaseling it - have at it. otherwise, it's going to be removed. Anastrophe 17:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The information presented in the section is basically correct (iirc) - so the correct way is to tag it with some tags for information that you believe dubious. I agree that it misses references - but if we just deleted everything on wikipedia because of that - there wouldn't be much left. This article is old enough to have been around before the requirements for verifiability. Tag it - and wait for corrections. --Kim D. Petersen 09:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Burning the article down is the right way to go. The deleted paragraphs do not belong in an encyclopedia. MonsterShouter 16:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

 * agreed. it's all weasel-word-loaded dreck. yes, there are bits and drips of accurate information in it, but it's POV to the hilt, and it's been unsourced for one month shy of three years. so, are we to understand that crap, if it survives long enough, become fact, by virtue of longevity? that's not a an encyclopedia is built. but i'll humor kimdabelsteinpetersen and tag the living shit out of it, as there's no other way to tag it. Anastrophe 17:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Anastrophe, despite your attempts at sarcasm - my guess is that people haven't sourced it because Qmail has mostly gone "out of fashion" since the article was written - which also was before things had to be referenced to the extent it is today. I have nothing against a rewrite btw. since i have no attachment to the subject at all - i've personally always implemented sendmail/postfix solutions. But like most other sysadms with a couple of decades of experience - i've become familiar with the controversy that DJB and his software raises in the community. --Kim D. Petersen 17:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 'out of fashion'? care to provide a citation for that bon mot? didn't think so. i'm also a sysadmin with a couple of decades of experience. most of the 'controversy' is little more than people hating djb's software because of djb's personality. some of the shortcomings of qmail cited are legitimate; the only 'controversy' is that trumped up by those with an axe to grind in that regard. sysadmins work around shortcomings of sendmail, postfix, communigate, exchange, etc etc every single day; it's simply the blind-spot of 'i chose this mta, therefore it's the best' at work. the difference is that sendmail, postfix, etc don't have an author that rubs people the wrong way. but i digress. the section is unencyclopedic. it is given undo weight by having it sit there full of weasel words and lacking sources.Anastrophe 17:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As for out of fashion - see this compared to this. --Kim D. Petersen 18:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * smtp server surveys tend to be unreliable, for reasons you should be familiar with as a sysadmin. gives a completely different response from only a year earlier - further suggesting unreliability. the high ranking of 'imail' defies logical explanatio, frankly. Anastrophe 18:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep they have large uncertainties applied - especially now where your SMTP server is typically frontend'ed by some sort of firewall relayer - or by people mangling their welcome message. But such survey's do give an indication - or do you think that Bernstein did his 2000 and 2001 survey's for fun - or because he wanted to debunk the 50-75% sendmail claims? (here's a rather new one ) --Kim D. Petersen 19:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes a large part of the controversy around Bernstein's products stem from personality clashes. But the reason that i for instance have run mostly on sendmail is that it was the best and most complete tool for the task. A hassle in learning the syntax - but you can make it dance, even when you have to support UUCP at the same time. But while such things are rather interesting to discuss in general - this is about qmail... And while some of the controversy may stem from personality clashes - it doesn't make the controversy less correct or notable. --Kim D. Petersen 19:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

congratulations to kimdabelsteinpetersen for replacing one set of weasel words with one of the weakest 'citations' i think i've ever read. one person states that qmail violates the standards - and we have a citation of controversy! kind of fits with the undo weight i was talking about....Anastrophe 17:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Anastrophe - be civil please. Attack the source - not the editor. The reference is to an IETF meeting, where all members are amongst the very top people in MTA and MTA protocol. That Qmail gets referenced and commented at this level - is indicative of quite alot more. --Kim D. Petersen 18:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

 * you seem to have a misconception of what the IETF is. the qualifications to join and participate in IETF meetings are precisely as follows: none. no reliability of the source you've cited is conferred by his or her off-the-cuff comment in the logs of an IETF meeting. i'm tempted to tag it as . and a reminder: the program is named qmail, not Qmail. Anastrophe 18:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly correct - but the commenter is John C. Klensin - chair of the Internet Architecture Board, and author of several RFC's . --Kim D. Petersen 20:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

 * except that what klensin says is benign and non-controversial; it's what cnewman says that suggests controversy. either way, it's about three lines of off-the-cuff banter, which really doesn't strike me as reliable. which is not to say that there aren't reliable sources regarding some of the controversy, i just think this particular citation is very weak in support of the contention. Anastrophe 21:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh - you mean Chris Newman, another author of several RFC's ? Yes - he is another chair of a IETF group (and author of SMTP RFC's) - someone i wouldn't be scared of calling an expert on SMTP ;-) --Kim D. Petersen 21:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

 * we have one person saying 'gross violations of the standards', the other saying simply 'bends' the standards. i suppose taken together we have a controversy, since they're at odds. it's an awful lot of kruft to plow through to get to that however (3 lines out of 863...)Anastrophe 21:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats two of the worlds top-most experts on SMTP protocol issues (experts here as in they have written part of the specifications) that are commenting that qmail doesn't do exactly what the SMTP protocols are specified as. One of which is stating that its gross violations and the other that it is "bending" them. I dare say that that should be a sufficient reference for "There is some controversy among mail system operators over whether qmail is as standards-compliant as its author claims" - and not a weak reference at all. --Kim D. Petersen 23:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Kim, you are required to cite reliable sources, and mailing list posts --- by anyone --- explicitly do not qualify. WP is not a venue to amplify or resolve Klensin or Newman's issues with Bernstein. In contrast to your claim, I rebut that this is simply a personality conflict spilling out into an informal mailing list. The issue remains: this is a weak, unencyclopedic, unbalanced section, and unless you can track down something better than allusions in mailing lists, it's going to be removed. --- tqbf  17:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is entirely incorrect since most protocol work, standard work, discussion amongst the experts etc. on this particular subject is happening on mailing lists. Had this been something that was duplicated in other media, then your argument would have been correct. But like it or not this is the way that the SMTP (and IETF) people work. --Kim D. Petersen 10:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Mailing lists are not reliable sources. It does not matter whose mailing lists they are. Find reliable sources. --- tqbf 18:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Find me the place in WP:RS that says that mailing lists that are part of standardization processes, and are the official mailing lists of the standard boards aren't reliable. Until then - please let the information rest. --Kim D. Petersen 19:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

 * You don't seem to have read the edit you're reverting. The substance of the criticisms in that section weren't removed; they were simply condensed to balance them against the rest of the article. But that's neither here nor there: anybody can post to an IETF mailing list. There is no fact checking or or editorial oversight on them. Please stop citing them as sources. --- tqbf  20:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tgbf - I've read the edits that i've reverted, and i suggest that you look abit at who the persons involved here are. They aren't just "anybody". You also deleted official IETF meeting data. So far you haven't provided anything that even remotely indicates that this isn't WP:RS. --Kim D. Petersen 21:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

 * it's further worth noting that in fact neither of the cites reference mailing list posts. the first is a log of a chat session. the latter is the minutes of a "Telechat" meeting of the IESG. i needn't comment on the quality of those as WP:RS, need i? Anastrophe 21:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And why is that? Can you state any other reliable reference to IETF standardization work? How do you think the IETF and IESG conduct most of their meetings? --Kim D. Petersen 21:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

 * your questions constitute a non-sequitur. informal commentary in a chat log is not a reliable source. the comments are off-the-cuff, and not directly responsive to any specific matter under formal discussion or on the agenda of the meeting. had the agenda included "Discussion of qmail's violations of standards" then it would have probative value. this isn't an article about how the IETF conducts its work - if it were, the citation would indeed be a reliable source. Anastrophe 22:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You make a serious error here. Stating that its "informal commentary in a chat log" is ignoring that this is an official standards committee meeting. Again, that this happens on IRC is a choice of convenience - and no less reliable than a transcript of any meeting. Had this been "informal" then the transcript wouldn't be available.
 * Try turning it around - does the choice of technology to conduct a meeting, make the meeting, or the minutes of that meeting less reliable?
 * What we have is a bunch of experts on the subject of MTA's, who are meeting for standardization work on MTA's, talking about a specific MTA. Which is something that WP:SPS specifically states is a reliable source. --Kim D. Petersen 00:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 * i'm sorry, but i do not believe i'm making any error. i am characterizing the comments you have focused upon as informal because within the context of the transcript, they are informal comments. reread the agenda for the meeting. read the rest of the discussions in the transcript. qmail, it's standards compliance or lack thereof, is not on the agenda, and there is no formal discussion of same. the entirety of the commentary extracted from this transcript that pertains to qmail is as follows (please forgive the crappy formatting):

 * [09:31:35] The demo implementation doesn't do mailing list related examples, but they are working on it.
 * [09:31:40] CNNIC's is based on Qmail
 * [09:39:23] John suggested to skip the demo, as it is difficult to follow.
 * [09:39:23] John is far too polite about qmail's gross violations of the standards.
 * [09:41:21] As a data point, the presentation is of no interest to me, and I have not seen it before. Of course, I'm not seeing it now, either. But I'm having fun imagining which qmail ideosynchrasies are causing John's blood pressure to rise. :-)
 * [09:44:53]  Chris, nothing serious -- just oddities in how trace fields are constructed. Qmail bends the standard in ways that would be almost unnoticable in 2821/2822 mail, but makes it hard to tell what changes are due to these extensions and which to qmail basic behavior. My blood pressure is not rising over that.
 * [09:47:47] ah, I see: eaipara is indeed a parameter; their demo works because qmail doesn't require the brackets around the address and the client isn't inserting them!

 * this amounts to little more than cnewman making a sarcastic comment about qmail, and klensin pointedly not rising to the bait. the only actual substantive content is from klensin, and the tenor is that the slight variance from standards is not a big deal to him. this handful of informal comments during a formal meeting about other matters isn't reliable. Anastrophe 01:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

qmail.com.hk
This site and company, a Hong Kong based hosting reseller, uses the qmail name and logo. Is this officially endorsed by DJB? They appear to abide by the license restrictions, only remote or on-site installation is sold, no binary CD packages, although that doesn't necessarily mean they compile and build qmail for their customers. StevenMcCoy 14:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy" section
Two things are going to happen to this section, and I'm giving a heads-up:

 * 1) Any critique of qmail that isn't sourced to a reliable secondary source --- IE, Rick Moen's personal website does not qualify --- are going to be stripped out.
 * 2) This section is going to be balanced with the rest of the article, so as not to give WP:UNDUE weight to a factional POV in an article about a piece of software.

The result of both of these changes is that I expect a number of pet criticisms to be removed. Source what you can, please.

--- tqbf 16:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Adjusted. You cannot have an article on a piece of software with 7 grafs of description and 8 grafs of "controversy". --- tqbf  05:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

 * agreed. i plowed through the old history diffs a while back, and as i noted way above, the huge chunk of uncited criticism had been there for three years. that's an intolerable violation of basic WP policy. editors are obviously welcome to add back any notable criticism they believe belongs here - so long as it has a WP:RS to go with it. Anastrophe 05:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, qmail is published on one person's personal site (DJB's). As such, it does seem that the same standards should apply to statements published about it on sources of a similar reliability. --FOo 08:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Uh... OK? Have you read WP:SPS? Noncontroversial SPS are acceptable when they are writing about themselves. Which citation are you looking to challenge? --- tqbf  10:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"talk is out"?
Kim used the following edit summary while reverting: "rv for the same reasons as previous. Talk it out..". Could you please explain what that means? Anastrophe 21:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I mean that i've tried to restore the referenced section - but the references seem to be continually deleted, despite that there has been no argumentation (imo) on their reliability. I can't argue against the deletion of the rest - since that has had a reasonable amount of time, for other editors to reference.
 * That the references are to mailing lists and minutia from the IETF, is merely a reflection of how the protocol and standardization work are being done. While this is unconventional, it is the way things are done. In general i'd object to these kinds of sources, but in this particular case, it is the way things are done. --Kim D. Petersen 21:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Kim: I am going to remove these two paragraphs, because they are (a) poorly sourced and (b) duplicate points made in the paragraph above them. If you hadn't noticed, that paragraph addresses your critique, and doesn't even attempt to rebut it, even though I think it's a ridiculous critique of qmail. We can go round and round on this, but you should not expect this to settle itself where you seem to want it to. The qmail article on Wikipedia is not the place to resolve all your concerns about Dan Bernstein. --- tqbf  22:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * i'd like to find a middle ground on this matter. i believe the problem informally deltas with the difference between malum in prohibitem and malum in se, so to speak. qmail violates standards. that's citable, and referenceable. the problem is, so does sendmail, and so do all MTAs. sendmail sort of gets the catbird seat, because many of the standards at issue were simply back-formations from sendmail's default behavior. Most RFC violations are minor and tend to fall into the 'quirk' category - every MTA has them. Major RFC violations generally don't show up in production MTA software as they prevent the MTA from Playing Well With Others. those with an axe to grind, for whatever reason, tend to exaggerate the significant of minor standards violations. no, i'm not accusing Kim of that, for the record. i've had to work around the 'shortcoming' of qmail's proclivity for acting as a joe-job bounce reflector in my own mailservers. it's frustrating. it's not a deal-breaker for me though, balanced against the reliability and security of the base software, and the ease of administration. but i digress. in fact i don't even remember where i was going with this. sigh. Anastrophe 23:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The middle ground I propose is:
 * Retain the critiques
 * Do not rebut them explicitly, thus making them noncontroversial
 * Condense them to 1 graf to balance them with the rest of the article
 * Move on.
 * Does this make sense? The article as of this afternoon no longer looks anything like the article from yesterday. --- tqbf  23:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources
I can't tell people how to spend their time (and it always pisses me off when other editors try to do it for me), but let me voice my opinion:

It is a waste of time arguing about whether IETF artifacts are reliable sources:

I recommend: give up. Let's move on. I've refactored the article, which was unencyclopedic, hard to read, and confusing; this issue no longer makes any sense, and is a moot point.
 * 1) Per WP:V, it is unlikely that any of these will be acceptable sources. People are not reliable sources, writing is. Reliable sources are writings published in venues with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Specifically excluded from this definition are venues composed primarily of opinions and personal beliefs.
 * Per WP:SPS and WP:RS, since these are experts (published) - who are talking specifically within their area of expertise - your argument is wrong. --Kim D. Petersen 00:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That depends on the mailing list; the mailing lists you're citing are unmoderated and unauthenticated, and you're extracting snippets of conversations without context to suit your arguments. --- tqbf  00:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Mailing lists and chat logs are inherently WP:SPS, which are always sources of last resort, and only suitable for non-controversial topics (not that we're arguing over the controversy section of this article.
 * Yes, and these are experts, talking within their field of expertise - something which WP:SPS makes specific exceptions for. The "chat logs" are the official transcript of the IETF meeting. That this happens on IRC is a choice of convenience - since the members of the IETF task force are spread across the globe. It doesn't make the meeting log less of a WP:RS, than a webtranscription of a face-to-face meeting. --Kim D. Petersen 00:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:SPS are the references of last resort. You're not addressing the argument. --- tqbf  00:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm, sorry? Should that be an argument? The trouble here is that all documentation of standardization, standardization work, and thus controversy over this, happens in this media. The end results are the RFC's. --Kim D. Petersen 01:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not at all true. The IETF, its processes, and its outputs are documented in numerous reliable secondary sources. --- tqbf  01:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) When "controversies" are factored out of the remainder of this article, the resulting article is mostly controversy, and like it or not, WP:WEIGHT applies: an article about a popular piece of software cannot consist mostly of debate about the software.
 * This particular "popular piece" of software (and its creator) has been subject of lots of controversy. The solution to the controversy issue - is not to delete the controversy - but instead to increase the amount of writing on the software. --Kim D. Petersen 00:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All you've demonstrated as this controversy is important to you. --- tqbf  00:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually i couldn't care less. Qmail and the debate over this, is something that i've followed on the sidelines. I agree in a large part with Bernstein on security issues - but i also acknowledge that Bernsteins personality and his way to react to criticism has been a hurdle. --Kim D. Petersen 01:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you propose to improve this article? --- tqbf  01:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) This debate is occurring almost entirely over the "Standards compliance" critique of qmail, which is not the most notable critique (licensing and security are). This is easily established by the balance of indisputably reliable sources. We cannot spend 4 grafs on an NN critique while allocating only 4 grafs to all the rest of the notable critiques and a comparable amount of time to the software itself.
 * Within the are of mailservers (and other internet communication software), standard compliance is a major issue. So is security, something where Qmail apparently excels. --Kim D. Petersen 00:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Things do not become notable simply because you say so. Do you have any non-crappy references that say standards-compliance is more notable than the current graf alludes to? If not, what are you arguing about? --- tqbf  00:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you of the opinion that IETF standardization work and the issues raised, within the context of MTA's is non-notable? --Kim D. Petersen 01:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, come off it. You aren't talking about the IETF --- you're talking about two people who happen to contribute to the IETF, and what they happen to think of Daniel Bernstein and qmail. Critiques are notable by dint of people writing about them in reliable sources. --- tqbf  01:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

--- tqbf 23:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Security vulnerability
The rewording, "No qualifying vulnerability has been published" introduces an unsupportable POV: it is not resolved that Guninski's finding, which is in fact a textbook integer overflow (despite the extraordinary difficulty involved in exploiting it), does not qualify, only that Bernstein has opted not to pay for it. --- tqbf 04:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 * but that's POV as well. the reward challenge has always stated that he is the final arbiter as to whether an exploit qualifies for the reward. therefore, if his decision is that an exploit does not qualify - then it does not qualify. whether one likes that or not is immaterial. based upon the specific qualifications outlined in the reward challenge, "No qualifying vulnerability has been published" is 100% accurate. Anastrophe 17:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Strong disagree. The word "qualifying" is a clear judgement on the finding. The only fact we can report is that Bernstein has declined to pay. Consider that Bernstein could unfairly disqualify, say, an uninitialized stack variable vuln (perhaps claiming "nobody knew about these in 1998, unfair to fault me for them"), and by the same logic you just used, their finding would not "qualify". We're simply debating the word "qualify"; let's find a more neutral word. Also: the award is quite disputed, and I say this as huge Bernstein fan and a security practitioner. --- tqbf  17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 * i have no disagreement that the award is disputed; however, characterizing it as simply 'bernstein declines to pay' is incorrect. pretend it's a creative writing sweepstakes. buried deep in the fine print, it says "entries that fail to capitalize the first letter of the first word of sentences are invalid, and will be disqualified". captain lazy-caps (that's me) submits an extraordinary first person account of my encounter with aliens. in all respects, it's perfect, but i fail to capitalize the first letter of the first word of sentences. i'm disqualified. i can bitch about it all i want, but the fact is, according to the terms of the sweepstakes, my entry did not qualify, so if i don't win, i can't say that the sweepstakes sponsor 'declined to pay' me. dammit, too much coffee this morning. Anastrophe 17:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 * (edit conflict) The difference between a sweepstakes and this contest is that the arbitrator published the criteria for qualification, and many (if not most) security practitioners agree that Guninski's finding qualifies. But that's how I'm characterizing on Talk, not in the article. I have no problem with rewording what's there now, but I have a real problem with wording it in a way that casts Guninski's finding in a negative light. It's a real finding, and a real mistake in the code. The only one, to my knowledge, ever found in a mainstream DJB package. It's a Big Deal. I've publicly offered to pay Guninski the $500 (thankfully, he hasn't taken me up on it). And again: I am a huge fan of Bernstein's. --- tqbf  17:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 * i (or the coffee) decided to be WP:BOLD and integrate the reward info into the body as part of the guninski controversy. this should adequately mitigate the problems with it in the lede, since the wording can be eliminated as it's implicit. Anastrophe 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Well played, sir! --- tqbf  17:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Full-featured
What's up with "qmail is the only full-featured MTA in the public domain."? How is "full-featured" defined and who gets to decide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.3.14 (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

 * please sign your comments when you post them by typing four tildes after it (this is noted at the top of the 'editing' page). full-featured is a reasonable term of art that a reasonable person can understand. full-featured means it's not just a single purpose script that can only inject a single message into another mailserver, for example. qmail provides all of the standard functionality a "full-featured" MTA would be expected to provide.

 * but there's an easy way to turn the question around: can you provide the name of another MTA that is in the public domain? then we can compare and see if it passes the 'reasonable person' test as an issue. Anastrophe (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Pretty sure that's not how Wikipedia works, Anastrophe. The question isn't "prove that statement isn't correct."  The question is "What's the citation for that statement?" 67.166.3.14 (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Consensus wins disputes here, and right now, you don't seem to have it. What wording do you propose besides "full featured" to describe the qmail feature set? Note that Anastrophe did not use "remarkably flexible", unlike Sendmail, or "a famous example of good programming practice, unlike Postfix, or "highly configurable with features lacking in other MTASs", unlike Exim. --- tqbf  03:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually i'm interested in what "full-featured" means here as well. Are we referring to a complete conformity to the ESMTP protocol? All features that users expect? That it can be used for all mail purposes?
 * The reason i'm asking is that i've dismissed it as usable specifically because it lacked a feature i needed (UUCP). If we are going to use this - then full-featured should be cited or defined. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

 * perhaps then we should just elide "full-featured" and call it what it is - the only public domain MTA, if we are to go by Comparison of mail servers. the problem of course is that WP can't be used as a reference for WP. but i'm not sure if there's any other reliable source with such comparisons. i still maintain that a 'reasonable person' understanding of what 'full featured' means applies. while we're discussing this - what unix/linux/xBSD system doesn't include UUCP? Anastrophe (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

i've modified the claim in the article. it should be a reasonable compromise, but we shall see. Anastrophe (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Free software: qmail is now the selected article
Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was Frets on Fire - a guitar playing game which has be the subject of software patent discussion in recent weeks.

For other interesting free software articles, you can take a look at the archive of PF's selectees. --Gronky (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Things moved on, as usual. The new selectee is Wireshark - a packet sniffer which people concerned about security might be interested in. --Gronky (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

requested edit
What is wrong with this edit ? Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 * did you read the edit summary? it isn't an improvement, particularly if you take the time to read more than just the first sentence. what are you trying to accomplish? Anastrophe (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Sentence structure that appears correct, and this can be accomplished by simply restructuring the sentence without changing the meaning. Are you averse to that? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 * This actually gave me an idea, what do you think about a small section regarding why the author decided qmail as opposed to Qmail? Do you think that would add to the article? NonvocalScream (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 * yes, it would be good to have it in the article. i'm sure it's discussed somewhere tho' offhand i don't know where. Anastrophe (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 * If the author of the software states it in a source, I'll find it. Once I do, I'll add it, and we can see if it fits.  If not, we can remove it.  NonvocalScream (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No longer very popular
Here are three surveys of mail server software:

 * http://www.falkotimme.com/projects/survey_smtp_032004.php (2004)
 * http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200604/mxsurvey.html (2006)
 * http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/sysadmin/2007/01/05/fingerprinting-mail-servers.html (2007)

None of them show qmail as having above a 5.3% market share or a rank higher than sixth place across all mail software ... and that survey, the O'Reilly one, is a survey of companies rather than mail servers:

 * Rather than surveying all the domains in the world--which would have been a fun project--we chose instead to survey only those domains that have a real company behind them. We partnered with an old-school company data firm to get a list of 400,000 companies worldwide as our source material. It's not the perfect solution, but it suits our needs, and we can survey all 400,000 in a couple of hours without so much as raising a single abuse complaint.

The falkotimme.com survey was based on IP scanning and found 0.03% of mail servers running qmail, compared to 29% for Sendmail, 19% for IMail, and 20% for Postfix.

The securityspace.com survey was based on MX records. It found qmail running on 0.09% of mail servers, compared to 35% Sendmail, 20% Microsoft, 15% Exim, and 11% Postfix.

So, it is *not* clear that Qmail remains one of the most popular pieces of mail server software. --FOo (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

 * It seems like this claim has been without a cite for over a year. Now we have contradicting sources.  I'm going to tag it dubious to motivate the issue.

 * On a side note the phrasing of the claim is going to make this a recurring problem. Once we have a cite, the claim should probably be phrased like "As of X, 200X, qmail is one of the top five ...". Reskusic (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I have removed this claim, I seriously doubt that it is a popular system today and without a citation from a reliable source on the subject it should not be here. Chillum  23:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Differences
Can anyone comment (find a citeable source) as to the most popular MTA to date for a unix system? Qmail? Postfix? Maybe have a comparison for use of a programmer making a decision as to which MTA to go forward with. Security is mentioned but what about performance, usability...?

Snowmaninthesun (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Qmail-distributions
Anastrophe:

I'm not happy with your reasons for removal:

"Same rationale for removal as before. the license status is already covered; the stuff about the google code base reads like an ad."

1. There's minimal overlap about license status. In the "Problem" section, I'm simply going into more detail about the headaches that the old license gave to patch developers.

2. Don't just delete the whole thing because you think it reads like an ad. Suggest how I can improve it.

Until you demonstrate that you will do something other than delete my entire contribution, I will undo your removal.

Let's work together for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Qmail!

Yonas yonas (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

 * you may not be happy with my rationale, but my rationale is based on wikipedia policy. based on your edit history, this appears to be a single purpose account, with the single purpose of driving eyeballs to the distribution you wish to promote. wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion, whether commercial in nature or not. you addition is not about qmail itself (please note, qmail is always spelled with a lowercase 'q') - it only indirectly pertains to the topic of this article. on that basis alone, the added section is in conflict with undue weight - this particular distribution is not particularly notable, and certainly not notable enough to warrant significant inclusion in this article. notable software associated with qmail is easily found via the link to qmail.org found in the external links. that's entirely sufficient coverage. Anastrophe (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

 * SPA: I've edited Wikipedia a lot, but not under an account (anonymous). My intentions are not related to my account anyway......
 * Vehicle for promotion: I'm not promoting, I'm including something that is relavant to people that want to learn about qmail, specifically, about new open source efforts that came out of the new license.
 * Not about qmail itself: Well, I first started a separate article "qmail-distribution", but people kept deleting it, saying it should be part of qmail article.
 * qmail is spelled lowercase: true dat.
 * qmail-distributions is not a notable distro: it's not a distro at all! It's an effort to combine patches into your own easy to download and deploy distro, which wasn't possible before.

 * Let the people learn about qmail-distributions in this article. Period. We can edit the amount of information in its paragraph, but don't delete everything. 13:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as no secondary reliable sources have commented on your project - its out. Sorry - but that is wikipedia policy. We do need outside sources to weight whether it is a notable project or not. Wikipedia is not a directory of possibly useful projects, interesting developments or of what people might consider relevant. We leave that completely and utterly in the hands of reliable sources. (and qmail-distribution isn't) If you want to promote your project, use Freshmeat or other software repositories to make it available to a broader audience. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Alright, I'll find a reliable source. I'll be baaaaaack!!! Bew haHahaHAaha Yonas yonas (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't take my Bew haha out either. Yonas yonas (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't take my Bew haha out either. Yonas yonas (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Secret ingredient
What is it that makes qmail safe to stand the test of time? The answers at http://cr.yp.to/qmail/guarantee.html do not suffice to make a program safe. Have any formal methods been used to implement qmail? --Abdull (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Backscatter
Qmail as released is seriously flawed. It accepts mail for non-existent recipients. Once it has determined the recipient doesn't exist, it sends a mail to the apparent sender. Spammers may therefore use an un-patched qmail essentially as a spam relay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_%28e-mail%29. One would expect the standard distribution of Qmail to include patches which various people have written to combat the problem, however, it appears not: http://mirror.tje.me.uk/pub/mirrors/www.qmail.org/top.html#patches. I suggest the article should have a criticisms section, outlining qmail's backscatter problem. More information can be found here to solve the problem: http://http.netdevice.com:9080/qmail/rcptck/. I suggest it is reasonable to strongly recommend against using standard qmail (without patches), Even the current version 1.06. Nick R Hill (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

IndiMail
Wouldn't it be a good idea to add IndiMail here? It's an updated and extended package, and after netqmail the second resurrection of qmail. I don't think it helps visitors/users to show netqmail as the most recent version, as it's hopelessly outdated and very hard (virtually impossible) to patch into an up-to-date system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Offerman (talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Abandoned?!
QMail rather looks like a completely abandoned project, now an actual risk because of a number of severe security problems. At least the wording should reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:EB20:1AC0:4032:50D3:22DC:A761 (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Qmail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070211060645/http://ftp.netbsd.org:80/pub/NetBSD/packages/pkgsrc/mail/qmail/README.html to ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/packages/pkgsrc/mail/qmail/README.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070211060057/http://ftp.netbsd.org:80/pub/NetBSD/packages/pkgsrc/mail/qmail-run/README.html to ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/packages/pkgsrc/mail/qmail-run/README.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080723183108/http://qmail.faqts.com/ to http://qmail.faqts.com/
 * Added tag to http://home.pages.de/~mandree/qmail-bugs.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080923121814/http://xzdev.com:80/qmail_queue.html to http://xzdev.com/qmail_queue.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

"Controversy" section
Little of the content in the "controversy" section actually qualifies as controversy, even in the most generous reading of the term. As well, little of the content is sourced. Based on the former point, the section should be renamed. To what, I do not know. Suggestions? The second matter is nearly as important as the first, however if it's unsourced, and not controversial vis a vis the Reasonable Person standard, shouldn't we just scrub the info? Anastrophe (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Article contradicts itself
Lede:

Standards compliance:

Not sure how to resolve this. --Holzklöppel (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 * I think whomever wrote the latter probably meant it in the sense of not being a 'drop in' replacement for sendmail. And actually, the lede sentence really should read "as a more secure alternative for the popular sendmail program". cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed it, thanks. --Holzklöppel (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Merged
I WP:BLAR'd Quick Mail Queuing Protocol and Quick Mail Transport Protocol to this page. They can be expanded upon here, but I don't see any prospect for notability. Brought in a few links & basic explanations from those BLAR'd pages — DFlhb (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Qmail


text: User talk:68.18.8.69

title: User talk:68.18.8.69


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Shapiro (conductor)

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was copyvio. – ABCD✉ 00:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Michael Shapiro (conductor)
copyvio'd vanity. Probably not notable. EvilPhoenix talk 22:37, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * deleted after listing at WP:CP--Duk 17:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 09:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.