Re: how to use the ISP''s smtp server directly
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote: FWIW I like exim the best and postfix next. hmm, installing MTAs like postfix or exim just to do smtp, seems to be overkill. Alternatives: nullmailer (and maybe: Anubis, MasqMail,...) http://untroubled.org/nullmailer/ http://anubis.sourceforge.net/ http://www.innominate.org/~oku/masqmail/ Greetings, Mark
Re: how to use the ISP''s smtp server directly
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote: [..] http://www-dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/~ma/postfix/vsqmail.html Postfix certainly seems to blow the others away. FWIW I like exim the best and postfix next. I've heard too many horror stories about sendmail, and read too much of djb's attitude. (also exim has some capabilities that postfix doesn't) My ISP uses Exim and I rather like the level of control they've given me for bouncing messages, forwarding mail, using SpamAssassin, etc. Doing this at the ISP level saves wasting my own bandwidth and CPU cycles. I wonder how well Exim performs when compared to Postfix. I'm searching for benchmarking info again now. ;) Thanks for that URL btw. :) -- Lee J. Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] Benefit the community and reply to the list msg29611/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: how to use the ISP''s smtp server directly
Hi, * Charles Cazabon [02-07-11 20:28:47 +0200] wrote: qmail configuration is even easier. http://mandree.home.pages.de/qmail-bugs.html bye, Rocco
Re: how to use the ISP''s smtp server directly
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 03:39:16PM +0100, Lee J. Moore wrote: | On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote: | | [..] | http://www-dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/~ma/postfix/vsqmail.html | | Postfix certainly seems to blow the others away. It does seem that way. | FWIW I like exim the best and postfix next. I've heard too many | horror stories about sendmail, and read too much of djb's attitude. | (also exim has some capabilities that postfix doesn't) | | My ISP uses Exim and I rather like the level of control they've | given me for bouncing messages, forwarding mail, using | SpamAssassin, etc. Doing this at the ISP level saves wasting my | own bandwidth and CPU cycles. I wonder how well Exim performs | when compared to Postfix. I'm searching for benchmarking info | again now. ;) Reread the above URL. It compares postfix, exim, qmail, and sendmail. It seems to indicate that exim is in second place. However, that benchmark is now outdated since exim is at version 4.05 (it used 3.33). | Thanks for that URL btw. :) You're welcome. I got it from the postfix-users list. -D -- Reckless words pierce like a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing. Proverbs 12:18 http://dman.ddts.net/~dman/ msg29615/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: how to use the ISP''s smtp server directly
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 02:37:59PM +0100, Lee J. Moore wrote: | On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Chris Grossmann wrote: | | Just want to add that I switched to postfix (from sendmail) | about 3 months ago and have never looked back.. | | I wonder if anybody on the list knows of any sites comparing the | performance and reliability of both Sendmail and Postfix? I can | only find rather unscientific comparisons by John Doe types. ;) http://www-dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/~ma/postfix/vsqmail.html FWIW I like exim the best and postfix next. I've heard too many horror stories about sendmail, and read too much of djb's attitude. (also exim has some capabilities that postfix doesn't) -D -- Microsoft DNS service terminates abnormally when it receives a response to a dns query that was never made. Fix information: run your DNS service on a different platform. -- bugtraq http://dman.ddts.net/~dman/ msg29590/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: how to use the ISP''s smtp server directly
* On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I would like to use mutt without the sendmail server on my machine. I find sendmail configuration quite abstruse. Can I directly make Mutt connect to my ISP's outgoing SMTP server. Not with just Mutt by itself, but you might want to check out ssmtp. It's linked from mutt.org's links section, along with other choices. -- John
Re: how to use the ISP''s smtp server directly
John Iverson wrote: * On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to use mutt without the sendmail server on my machine. I find sendmail configuration quite abstruse. Can I directly make Mutt connect to my ISP's outgoing SMTP server. Not with just Mutt by itself, but you might want to check out ssmtp. It's linked from mutt.org's links section, along with other choices. you might also check out postfix; there are good sample configurations for null clients and workstations that relay through a relayhost at: http://www.postfix.org/faq.html postfix is also a bit less complicated than sendmail to configure (and harder to misconfigure). -- Will Yardley input: william @ hq . newdream . net .
Re: how to use the ISP''s smtp server directly
Just want to add that I switched to postfix (from sendmail) about 3 months ago and have never looked back.. I found the configuration to be easy, especially compared to sendmail. Will Yardley wrote: John Iverson wrote: * On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to use mutt without the sendmail server on my machine. I find sendmail configuration quite abstruse. Can I directly make Mutt connect to my ISP's outgoing SMTP server. Not with just Mutt by itself, but you might want to check out ssmtp. It's linked from mutt.org's links section, along with other choices. you might also check out postfix; there are good sample configurations for null clients and workstations that relay through a relayhost at: http://www.postfix.org/faq.html postfix is also a bit less complicated than sendmail to configure (and harder to misconfigure). -- Will Yardley input: william @ hq . newdream . net . -- Chris Grossmann email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.grossmann.us YIM - chris_grossmann_rtp
Re: how to use the ISP''s smtp server directly
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Chris Grossmann wrote: Just want to add that I switched to postfix (from sendmail) about 3 months ago and have never looked back.. I wonder if anybody on the list knows of any sites comparing the performance and reliability of both Sendmail and Postfix? I can only find rather unscientific comparisons by John Doe types. ;) I found the configuration to be easy, especially compared to sendmail. I have to say that it surprised me how easy it was to configure. Back when I first installed Gentoo Linux, Sendmail was unavailable. After merging Postfix, it was up and running without any configuration required whatsoever. The default settings were fine. When I had to change the configuration (for Maildir, Procmail integration, etc.) it was a two minute task. :) -- Lee J. Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] Benefit the community and reply to the list msg29534/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: how to use the ISP''s smtp server directly
* On 2002.07.11, in [EMAIL PROTECTED], * Will Yardley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: postfix is also a bit less complicated than sendmail to configure (and harder to misconfigure). Sendmail configuration is usually quite easy (that is, unless you're doing complicated things with it). It's finding out how to configure it that's hard. The introductory material is not so good. Given a quick start guide, though, sendmail is no worse than postfix (which I found harder to configure, frankly). -- -D.Fresh fruit enriches everyone. Takes the thirst ENSA, NSIT out of everyday time. A pure whiff of oxygen, University of Chicago painting over a monochrome world in primary colors. [EMAIL PROTECTED] We all know that. It's why everyone loves fruit.
[OT] Re: how to use the ISP''s smtp server directly
David Champion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * On 2002.07.11, in [EMAIL PROTECTED], * Will Yardley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: postfix is also a bit less complicated than sendmail to configure (and harder to misconfigure). Sendmail configuration is usually quite easy (that is, unless you're doing complicated things with it). It's finding out how to configure it that's hard. The introductory material is not so good. Given a quick start guide, though, sendmail is no worse than postfix (which I found harder to configure, frankly). qmail configuration is even easier. Installing the software is trivial if you follow Life with qmail (http://lifewithqmail.org), and then configuration is literally a single step for simple installations: ./config-fast myhost.mydomain.tld Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.ca/~charlesc/software/ ---
Re: how to use the ISP''s smtp server directly
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 11:20:53AM +0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I would like to use mutt without the sendmail server on my machine. I find sendmail configuration quite abstruse. Can I directly make Mutt connect to my ISP's outgoing SMTP server. Sendmail configuration to to what Mutt would be doing is absolutely trivial. Key line would be define(`SMART_HOST', `smarthost.yourISP.net') -- William Park, Open Geometry Consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8-CPU Cluster, Hosting, NAS, Linux, LaTeX, python, vim, mutt, tin
Re: how to use the ISP''s smtp server directly
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-07-11 11:20]: Hi, I would like to use mutt without the sendmail server on my machine. I find sendmail configuration quite abstruse. Can I directly make Mutt connect to my ISP's outgoing SMTP server. Regards Amit I'm using sSMTP. ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/Linux/system/mail/mta/ -- http://kldp.org/~eunjea/
Re: how to use the ISP''s smtp server directly
David Champion wrote: * On 2002.07.11, in [EMAIL PROTECTED], * Will Yardley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: postfix is also a bit less complicated than sendmail to configure (and harder to misconfigure). Sendmail configuration is usually quite easy (that is, unless you're doing complicated things with it). It's finding out how to configure it that's hard. The introductory material is not so good. Given a quick start guide, though, sendmail is no worse than postfix (which I found harder to configure, frankly). i suppose it's a matter of opinion, and what you're used to (and what your personal preferences are). I have used (and continue to use) sendmail, although I generally prefer to use postfix when possible. I make no claims to being an expert with m4, but I find flat configuration files simpler to deal with, and there are a lot of mistakes (order of stuff in the mc file, editing the cf file directly) that people tend to make frequently if they don't have experience with sendmail. Many vendors have their own tools which make it easier (or harder) to deal with. The postconf tool is also very useful since it lets you query both default and current settings, and even edit settings if necessary. I have no hard stats, but I've found postfix's performance to be better than sendmail's, and its security record is excellent. Charles Cazabon wrote: qmail configuration is even easier. Installing the software is trivial if you follow Life with qmail (http://lifewithqmail.org), and then configuration is literally a single step for simple installations: To each his / her own, I suppose. I find qmail almost as unpleasant as its author. -- Will Yardley input: william @ hq . newdream . net .
Re: how to use the ISP''s smtp server directly
Hi, * Will Yardley [02-07-11 22:10:53 +0200] wrote: The postconf tool is also very useful since it lets you query both default and current settings, and even edit settings if necessary. Such a feature would be cool for mutt, too. Finding config mistakes was easier by just reporting non-default values of the system-wide and user-specific config files (for use in flea(1), for example). bye, Rocco
how to use the ISP''s smtp server directly
Hi, I would like to use mutt without the sendmail server on my machine. I find sendmail configuration quite abstruse. Can I directly make Mutt connect to my ISP's outgoing SMTP server. Regards Amit - Sify Mail - now with Anti-virus protection powered by Trend Micro, USA. Know more at http://mail.sify.com One click here and you could be counting money! StreetsCall from Walletwatch.com. Subscribe now! http://www.walletwatch.com/cgi-bin/ww/walletwatch/equity/news_articles/news_detail.jsp?oid=11658894
