Sloan wrote: > We were a sendmail shop for years, and looked at other MTAs, always > looking for the optimum setup. We looked at qmail, and found a few > things we didn't like. It was so starkly different from sendmail that > we'd have a lot of work to do to adapt our scripts etc to it, and there > would be a learning curve for our admins. Also there were some technical
When I started learning about MTAs I tried to understand Sendmail and gave up when even the documentation and how-tos sounded like so much gibberish to me. Postfix on the other hand is documented very accurately. How long did it take you to get a grip on the basics of QMail? > details we didn't like - mail queue files were referenced by inode > number, so if we ever had to recover from a disaster, guess what? > different inode numbers, and we're hosed. Also, we had thousands of > aliases and redirects which change daily - postfix and sendmail easily > handle this, but qmail seemed a bit more awkward to configure. How were the lookups done, LDAP/SQL or flat files? What were the symptoms? > In any case, we settled on postfix, and found it to be essentially > sendmail on steroids for the most part - much lower demand on system > resources, very flexible and fast, and no more security alerts. Yes, Postfix as well as QMail were developed out of need for secure MTAs, as I just read on http://cr.yp.to/qmail.html. Wietse does take care not to introduce features that waste resources. Probably one of the reasons whey Suse changed to Postfix as the default MTA. Thanks for the view of a (previous) Sendmail user. Did you have a look at Exim as well? When I took a casual look at their documentation it seemed quite nice. -- Sandy List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
