Re: [gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail
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). I object to this statement. Sendmail is a solid MTA. Calling it as bad as qmail is just going to far... I've maintained some pretty large sendmail systems without a problem. That said - I now use postfix if given a choice. -- Bryan Whitehead Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail
On 7/31/06, Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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). Anyhow, now the OP can make a semi-informed decision. As previously stated I would recommend Postfix. -Mike -- Michael E. Crute http://mike.crute.org I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I intended to be. --Douglas Adams -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail
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. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail
Alexander Skwar wrote: Suranga Kasthuriarachchi wrote: Which is the best for organization mail server. NOT qmail - too many holes and not good performancewise. Some clarification on the security of qmail: qmail has no known holes be default other than still playing the MTA game by 1998 rules which is are problems and almost as annoying as security issues. Patches like 0.0.0.0, limit-bounce size, etc solve most of those. It also has very few features which is sort of the root of the problem. In order to get features (and performance) you have to patch the hell out of qmail which is of course no longer the secure default build. The 1.0.3-r16 ebuild has 29 possible patches. It's through the patches that security problems are likely to be introduced, but IIRC there has one been one or two that have been found at least in mature non bleeding edges patches. and then on performance: qmail can be made to perform, but you have to add the performance patches (qmailqueue, big-todo, big-concurrency) and do much more tuning that you'd need to do with any other mail servers. However the one mail per TCP session is one thing you can't get around and will limit the speed of large installations. Most home user or small business users won't run into that. Or you can install Postfix/Sendmail/Exim which have had actual development over the last eight years. kashani -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail
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. http://cr.yp.to/qmail/venema.html -- Michael E. Crute http://mike.crute.org I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I intended to be. --Douglas Adams -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail
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: | The security guarantee is a smoke ball. Several people, among | them Wietse Venema and Georgi Guninski, have documented exploitable | qmail security bugs, yet the USD 500 have never been paid to either | of them. Bye, Alexander Skwar -- "I'm in Pittsburgh. Why am I here?" -- Harold Urey, Nobel Laureate -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail
On Mon, July 31, 2006 8:28 am, Alexander Skwar wrote: > Suranga Kasthuriarachchi wrote: > >> Which is the best for organization mail server. > > NOT qmail - too many holes and not good performancewise. > sendmail has had numerous holes "way back then". And I > dislike the configuration "language". > > So, I'd suggest postfix or exim. I personally use Postfix > always. It's featureful and easy enough to configure. > > Alexander Skwar > -- > Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. > -- > gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list > Alexander: Would you care to share the known holes on qmail? As I have read, the qmail community regards qmail as the *most* secure email server available. Thanks in advance, / Ronald Vincent Vazquez Senior Unix Systems Administrator Senior Network Manager Christ Tabernacle Church Ministries http://www.ctcministries.org (301) 540-9394 Home (240) 401-9192 Cell For web hosting solutions, please visit: http://www.spherenix.com/ -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail
Michael Crute wrote: 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). It may be 'secure' from that respect, but not from any other. In it's default settings, it's far too accepting and is a pain to close down. It uses non-standard locations and configuration, and is popular with Spammers as they can use it 'bounce' spam onto third parties by send mail (via the server) to the server with an invalid delivery address and the destination as the recipient. It also find it generally flaky when running and a poor performer (I love it when it decides to restart itself, but fails because the old process hasn't shutdown quick enough and stops the new process form running). That said, I use postfix and love it. Same here - it's so easy and straight forward to configure, stable (I've had it running for months without even having to think about it) and good support for newer technologies (such as RBL, MAPS, SPF and Greylisting). qmail doesn't support any of them by standard - to use it, you must either find a binary that supports it (via binary distributions, or compile them in yourself). Plus, IIRC, there's no active development in qmail. -- Jonathan Wright ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ www.djnauk.co.uk -- 2.6.17-gentoo-r3-djnauk-b1 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2100+ up 21:58, 0 users, load average: 0.16, 0.41, 0.49 -- cat /dev/random (because u never know, u may see something u like) -- "Some see the move as an attempt to preserve traditional values, while others see it as a cynical ploy to ensure that Vice President Dick Cheney will never have to pay for his gay daughter's wedding." ~ Jon Stewart, on President Bush's proposal for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail
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. sendmail has had numerous holes "way back then". And I dislike the configuration "language". So, I'd suggest postfix or exim. I personally use Postfix always. It's featureful and easy enough to configure. 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). That said, I use postfix and love it. -Mike -- Michael E. Crute http://mike.crute.org I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I intended to be. --Douglas Adams -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail
Suranga Kasthuriarachchi wrote: > Which is the best for organization mail server. NOT qmail - too many holes and not good performancewise. sendmail has had numerous holes "way back then". And I dislike the configuration "language". So, I'd suggest postfix or exim. I personally use Postfix always. It's featureful and easy enough to configure. Alexander Skwar -- Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail
Dear All,Which is the best for organization mail server.Thanks & rgds.Suranga
