On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 16:13:31 -0800, Chuck McManis wrote: > > Actually I'm a bit surprised that things didn't go with Qmail. Not only is > it everything Postfix aspires to be, it has a zillion hours of runtime > under its belt. Its been at the 1.03 release forever because there hasn't > been anything to fix. If I had one complaint it would be to do an > integration pass over the various pop3/imap/ssl/etc modifications to create > an integrated pop3/mta that could allow for roaming delivery out of the box. > First, Qmail is available via the port system. The installation does everything right. It is nice. It is painless. I run it. I wouldn't run anything else. It is what works for me.
Some people, however, can't get along with Qmail's configuration. I don't know why. But I can't criticize, since I can't grok Postfix's configuration, let alone Sendmail's. But the main reason distributions don't offer Qmail as part of their standard installation, or even as an option on the installation, is because Dan Bernstein forbids the distribution of binaries or even patched sources. (The port fetches the source and then fetches any patches, separately.) He has his own license, which is not a "free" software license. (Irritating side question: Should this be an FAQ?) Finally, there are now some recommended patches. If you look at Life With Qmail, you'll find that the recommended installation procedure uses netqmail rather than "vanilla" qmail. -- David Benfell, LCP [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Resume available at http://www.parts-unknown.org/resume.html _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"