Michael Crute schrieb:
On 7/31/06, Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael Crute wrote:
> On 7/31/06, Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Suranga Kasthuriarachchi wrote:
>> > Which is the best for organization mail server.
>>
>> NOT qmail - too many holes and not good performancewise.
> I would beg to differ with the statement about security. Qmail is
> arguably THE MOST secure mail server
> (http://cr.yp.to/qmail/guarantee.html).
Actually, it is NOT. DJB made this statement but he doesn't
stand to it. See http://home.pages.de/~mandree/qmail-bugs.html
for a quite big collection of bugs and RFC violations of qmail.
To quote from that page:
I'm not here to start a war over the merits of any one MTA... but I
think it's worth reading DJBs rebuttal of the accusations made by
Postfix's author.
Well, that page that I quoted from is NOT from the Postfix
author. It's from somebody else. Also, the page you mentioned
is from no later than 1998, it seems. My page was from 2006 (!),
so it really seems as if nothing has been changed in qmail in
8 years! Not really convincing, if you ask me. Finally, the
500$ offer isn't worth anything, as it's not awarded, although
it should've been.
And in closing, I'd like to just add, that the personality of
DJB also doesn't make qmail or his software favorable to me.
Anyway - I stand to what I wrote. I'd suggest any MTA, *BESIDES*
qmail and sendmail. qmail, as it's too buggy, too few features
and too "complicated". sendmail, as the configuration is a nightmare
(compared to easier systems available nowadays).
Alexander Skwar
--
"Professional certification for car people may sound like an
oxymoron." -The Wall Street Journal, page B1, Tuesday, July 17,
1990.
--
[email protected] mailing list
