Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Thx for the info. What I was curious about was also how qmail
>scales. For example, it requires patches sometimes.
Rarely. IMHO, people are way to eager to install unnecessary patches.
>Apparently with large mailinglists the bigtodo patch is needed.
big-concurrency, perhaps. big-todo is usually only necessary on
systems that handle *lots* of messages.
>Or it apparently needs the dns patch.
No. I've never needed it, and if you're using dnscache, it's
completely unnecessary.
>In other words, qmail does not seem be uptodate as new requirements
>come up. I have a nagging feeling that Dan will not deal with qmail
>anymore, and perhaps he will concentrate on im2000 instead---or leaves
>email alone.
Well, there are no guarantees. Dan could get hit by a truck, as the
saying goes.
>It seems that as far as sysadm books are concerned, qmail is already
>buried. For example, the new edition of the Nemeth et all book barely
>mentions qmail, and discusses only postfix configuration. The same
>with the newest ( I forgot the author; endorsed by Raymond) Linux
>security book.
So what? How long did it take Nemeth, et al, to acknowledge Linux?
Are you trying select the most popular MTA or the best MTA for the
job? If the former, stick with Sendmail. If the latter, decide what's
important to you, evaluate the candidates, and select the best fit.
-Dave
