SeattleServer.com wrote: > On Sunday 22 October 2006 00:06, Stanislaw Halik wrote: > >>Would using qmail as a smarthost help? Not sure if overhead wouldn't >>outweigh the benefits, though. > > > I don't like using qmail anymore for authenticated connections...it won't > even > do it at all without extensive patching and doesn't give me the flexibility I > like (like scanning with clamav and not accepting viruses at SMTP time, > supporting NTLM authentication, etc.) Note I'm sure there's various qmail > patches for all that stuff but as time goes on, keeping up with the plethora > of patches you need to make qmail usable is growing increasingly nightmarish > as it's unmaintained software. > > The bulk mailings don't need to pass through the MSA, anyways, as they are > from a trusted relay host. qmail can handle that just fine without patching > iirc. The only patch I can think to consider for that is for supporting > remote TLS hosts. > > Cheers,
Not to forget that the very 'technique' which once gave QMail an advantage - that of opening a separate connection for each message/recipient on a target destination - has become associated with certain spam techniques. Hitting an 'smtp_accept_max_per_host' limit and having to retry later may very well negate that 'advantage'. Bill -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
