> Yeah, I think qpsmtpd is a great program. But I think it can be much
> better and much more versatile than it already is. My biggest issue
with
> it is its ties to qmail.

It is a long time ago that you didn't read the homepage of qpsmtpd.
Qpsmtpd isn't tied with qmail anymore.  It is an autonomous MTA by now.

> Now don't get me wrong, qmail is also a great product. But qpsmtpd
being
> tied to it in such a way limits its use. I think qpsmtpd would be much
> more versatile if it was a completely separate and independent
program.
> And it didn't rely on numerous qmail configuration files or on things
> like daemontools. I think it would be much more widely accepted, too.

I bet you didn't look at forkserver or other ways to run it.  Take a
look at the wiki.  You'll be surprised.

> For example, what if it were /just/ a proxy. That is, it listens on
port
> 25 and forwards the SMTP conversation to the local SMTP server while
> monitoring the chat.If it detects something wrong, like a positive
> dnsbl detection or a virus, it interrupts the connection to the local
> server and sends the appropriate error to the sending server. That's
> just one example...

Why waste the time of the underlying mailserver ?  Why not simply queue
the mail after verification ?

> A set up like that would be virtually transparent and very easy to
> implement. The actual mail server--be it sendmail, postfix, qmail,
exim,
> or whatever--would handle all the SMTP authentication, recipient
> validation, and whatnot. 

Qmail plugins are there for that.  Some can always write missing
validation plugins.  Ok, some things would be simpler in a "proxy" way.

> In my example, qpsmtpd would simply be there to
> prevent spam, or viruses, from entering the mail system--that's it. No
> need for auth plugins, goodrcptto plugins, and so on. Work could be
> focused on spam prevention while allowing the mail server to do its
> thing--receive and deliver mail.

Qpsmtpd relies on the queue plugins to forward to the next step in the
chain.  What's wrong with that ?

> Again, my intent isn't to bad mouth qpsmtpd--I think it's a great
> product. I just think there are ways to make it a better and more
> versatile product.

Good so.

Sydney.

Reply via email to