On 5/30/08, DAve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Zimmerman wrote:
>> Foo JH wrote:
>>> I like Qmail. It's not overly difficult to configure, and it's
>>> extensible.
>> and requires 400 patches to do basic things =(
> List them, not 100, not 399, all 400 please.
> Keep in mind that when your download x.x.x release of a software package
> you are downloading a "patched" source code. Sendmail has been patched
> many times, Postfix is patched, Exim is patched. qmail just requires you
> apply your own patches. Patching is not a bad thing, shrinkwrap mail
> admins applying patches that they do not understand is a bad thing.
>> heres some interesting reading about qmail...
>> http://www.dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/~ma/qmail-bugs.html
> That so much time and effort is spent telling everyone how bad qmail is
> still amazes me. It is one of the best performing and most extensible
> MTAs I have ever used. It is not however, suitable for those who choose
> not to understand how mail works. Point and clickers should stay with
> Postfix, also a very capable MTA.

I agree. No one should use Qmail unless they have read and completely
understand every email-related RFC and have at least two years of
experience running a commercial mail server. Amateurs shouldn't even
consider it.

Please, use anything but Qmail. It sprays backscatter spam all over
the internet.

- Bob
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to