Bill Vermillion wrote:
In the last exciting episode of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] saga on Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at
06:27 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] as heard to say:
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 11:37:11 +1000
From: Norberto Meijome <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: mail server setup questions
To: "Bob Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Andrey Shuvikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, email@example.com
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 16:52:56 -0400
"Bob Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In case I haven't made myself clear, I despise Qmail with a
passion. I suppose it is suitable for people who like puzzles
(as in "What patches do I need to make this do something
useful?" or "What third-party tool do I need to make sense
out of these awful log files?") and who don't mind inflicting
lots of unnecessary secondary spam on the rest of the world.
Yes, I know there are _supposed_ to be patches that fix that
problem, but (a) the one I've seen in action doesn't work very
well, and (b) you shouldn't need to apply third-party patches
to your mail server to make it do what it is supposed to do in
the first place.
I second all these points. I think it's probably better to use
sendmail than qmail. Sendmail at least supports most (all?)
SMTP / antispam related features, it is well documented ,
and configurable to the extreme (with the caveat that its
configuration may be a bit daunting to the un-initiated :D).
I just realised that qmail appears over and over in Linux
distros, or at least on linux servers i've had to suffer... not
sure the relationship there (in design / philosophy...)... and I
am really NOT wanting to start a flame war. Just a thought that
crossed my mind as I was reading this thread.
I've been using sendmail for years, once it got stable, and I moved
from Smail. This was on a SysV.3 from Esix.
However one day I decided to see what all the hoopla over qmail
was about. So I went into the ports and ran make.
Much to my suprise, qmail installed 6 separate accounts in the
pasword file. This was just with a make and NOT make install.
That at the very least is very rude behaviour. And another problem
with qmail from what I've read is that if you send mail to
several people on the same server, instead of doing what all
other MTA's do - and send ONE mail with all addresses, qmail
will generate a separate email for each user - putting un-needed
loads on your server and the recipients machine.
And the last time the qmail tar file that you get when you run
make has been changed was March 4, 2001. Anyone who even thinks
that a piece of software that it 6 years old has no flaws had best
re-think this. The last patches were in 2003.
Don't wonder if qmail has flaws, go to CERT.org and search first for
Sendmail, then Postfix, then Exim, then qmail. To say "Anyone who even
thinks that a piece of software that it 6 years old has no flaws had
best re-think this.", is simply FUD.
ISTR that I heard DJB speak at a Usenix conference many years ago
and I was less than impressed with his "I'm better than any of
Many seem to share that feeling - so consider me prejudiced.
We have run qmail for several years on FreeBSD quite well with few
problems, none of which where related to the software, it's design, it's
configuration, always it was Clam or SpamAssassin binding things up. It
is stable, fast, secure, and provides abilities other MTAs do not. It is
our first choice for a toaster or a mail list server.
We use Sendmail on our gateways for it's excellent milter support and
versatile configuration. It has more knobs than a recording studio.
If we had a client with just a few domains and the need for their own
MTA, we would install Postfix for it's ease of use. It's rock solid and
easy to remember when you come back to it six months later.
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail"
Three years now I've asked Google why they don't have a
logo change for Memorial Day. Why do they choose to do logos
for other non-international holidays, but nothing for
Maybe they forgot who made that choice possible.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"