Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
At 01:37 PM 7/5/2005, Steve Cole wrote: On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe you have some other issues... I'm sure that's it. Probably the same issue on Solaris 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, Linux 2.0, 2.4, 2.6, FreeBSD 4.1, 4.3, and SCO. After all, the symptoms are the same... qmail-send dies. I'm sorry, what was the question again? i've been running qmail since 1998 across solaris 2.5.1, 2.7, 2.9, assorted linuxes, and freebsd 5.x, and have *never* had qmail-send die. not a single, solitary time. yes, this is on high volume servers (national ISP infrastructure). i won't speculate where the problem actually lies. That should be obvious. Paul Theodoropoulos http://www.anastrophe.com http://www.smileglobal.com been running QMail for oh3 years now on Redhat 9...runs like a champ. Have to say it is the best MTA I have ever used. -- Marty Pokojski Network Engineer Terabyte LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday, July 5 at 02:37 PM, quoth Steve Cole: Squirrelmail w/Zlib compression turned on Very good, and I like it - but no drag and drop. ;) hand before, and I currently use the Debian package -- they're about Great. Now apt-get install imapproxy, configure and marvel. :) Been thinking about it - figured if nobody was complaining about speed, I'd hold off. The best I've gotten here is a homemade tiny squirrelmail plugin that puts a link to qmailadmin on the squirrelmail login page. If anyone's interested, I can post it (though it's really and truly trivial). Sure, if it's a plugin. That would possibly save me some editing time for updates. http://www.memoryhole.net/~kyle/managelink_login-0.1-1.4.0.tar.gz ~Kyle -- The criterion of truth is that it works even if nobody is prepared to acknowledge it. -- Ludwig von Mises signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
Guys, let me explain why I'm asking this. My boss (not me) has doubts about Qmail. He wants me to search for new mailservers of mail solutions like, for example, outsourcing the mail function. So I'm asking this now to have more arguments to convince him to stay with Qmail. My boss (and me) esteem Inter7 and we'd like to hear from you the answer of this question. Regards, bnegrao Hi Inter7 and everybody, I'd like to know why do you opt Qmail as your mailserver? Why not Postfix? Why not Qmail-ldap? Why not any other that I don't know about? Would you work with some other mailserver? If so, which one? Thank you in advance,
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
There are a lot of us here using qmail and able to give you an e-mail service. So you can continue to use qmail and your boss will have an outsourced service! Ciao, Tonino At 15.29 05/07/2005, you wrote: Guys, let me explain why I'm asking this. My boss (not me) has doubts about Qmail. He wants me to search for new mailservers of mail solutions like, for example, outsourcing the mail function. So I'm asking this now to have more arguments to convince him to stay with Qmail. My boss (and me) esteem Inter7 and we'd like to hear from you the answer of this question. Regards, bnegrao Hi Inter7 and everybody, I'd like to know why do you opt Qmail as your mailserver? Why not Postfix? Why not Qmail-ldap? Why not any other that I don't know about? Would you work with some other mailserver? If so, which one? Thank you in advance,
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
Haha, Let the bidding begin. tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote: There are a lot of us here using qmail and able to give you an e-mail service. So you can continue to use qmail and your boss will have an outsourced service! Ciao, Tonino At 15.29 05/07/2005, you wrote: Guys, let me explain why I'm asking this. My boss (not me) has doubts about Qmail. He wants me to search for new mailservers of mail solutions like, for example, outsourcing the mail function. So I'm asking this now to have more arguments to convince him to stay with Qmail. My boss (and me) esteem Inter7 and we'd like to hear from you the answer of this question. Regards, bnegrao Hi Inter7 and everybody, I'd like to know why do you opt Qmail as your mailserver? Why not Postfix? Why not Qmail-ldap? Why not any other that I don't know about? Would you work with some other mailserver? If so, which one? Thank you in advance, -- James McMillan V.P. Of Information Technology www.TheNetMark.com 412 New Broadway Brooklawn, NJ 08030 888.767.8750 X106
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
At 07:29 AM 7/5/2005, Bruno Negrão wrote: Guys, let me explain why I'm asking this. My boss (not me) has doubts about Qmail. He wants me to search for new mailservers of mail solutions like, for example, outsourcing the mail function. does your boss have a rationale for his doubts, or are they based upon a 'gut' feeling? usually doubts arise based upon shortcomings. what shortcoming does your boss see in qmail (note, small 'q' - it is not Qmail). Paul Theodoropoulos http://www.anastrophe.com http://www.smileglobal.com
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
does your boss have a rationale for his doubts, or are they based upon a 'gut' feeling? usually doubts arise based upon shortcomings. what shortcoming does your boss see in qmail (note, small 'q' - it is not Qmail). OK. He wants to know if there is a tendency on the market for some other mailserver. He asks me what mailservers the biggest linux/Unix distributors are using on their products. For example, what's the mailserver shipped with RedHat, Solaris, Mandrake, Debian, etc? I really don't know. I believe all of them are shipped only with Sendmail, but I'm not sure on this actually. Do you know that? Thank you very much, Bruno.
RE: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
That's right. Most of the GNU/linux distributors are using sendmail but I can assure you that the mailserver most robust, efficient and secure is by far qmail. Sendmail has been out there for a long time and too many security bugs have been found. They have been fixed though. Qmail has been developed after seen all the bugs and design problems sendmail had to fix, and what really makes the difference is that qmail has been developed with security in mind. His developer even offered a reward to anyone who could find a security bug which still have not been claimed. It has been developed in a modular way that makes it extreamly easy to add functionality to it and much more. Inter 7 did not develop qmail, they only offer tools to manage it and sometimes add some functionality to it like vpopmail, etc. Qmail is a master piece, I can assure you that. I don't know why most of the distributors do not include qmail but nobody can deny that qmail has became the most powerfull and secure mailserver ever and has been growing very very fast. -Original Message- From: Bruno Negrão [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 3:05 PM To: vchkpw@inter7.com Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail? does your boss have a rationale for his doubts, or are they based upon a 'gut' feeling? usually doubts arise based upon shortcomings. what shortcoming does your boss see in qmail (note, small 'q' - it is not Qmail). OK. He wants to know if there is a tendency on the market for some other mailserver. He asks me what mailservers the biggest linux/Unix distributors are using on their products. For example, what's the mailserver shipped with RedHat, Solaris, Mandrake, Debian, etc? I really don't know. I believe all of them are shipped only with Sendmail, but I'm not sure on this actually. Do you know that? Thank you very much, Bruno.
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:05:22 -0300 Bruno Negrão [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: does your boss have a rationale for his doubts, or are they based upon a 'gut' feeling? usually doubts arise based upon shortcomings. what shortcoming does your boss see in qmail (note, small 'q' - it is not Qmail). OK. He wants to know if there is a tendency on the market for some other mailserver. He asks me what mailservers the biggest linux/Unix distributors are using on their products. For example, what's the mailserver shipped with RedHat, Solaris, Mandrake, Debian, etc? I really don't know. I believe all of them are shipped only with Sendmail, but I'm not sure on this actually. Debian (and Ubuntu - based on Debian) and FreeBSD all use Exim by default. I'm not sure about any Linux distros other than Debian. I've seen a couple ISPs and such before that use sendmail - but that was simply a mandate from the higher ups that didn't know anything about mail servers. Evidently Sendmail was the only software name they recognized, so they decided it needed to be the only one used in their company - none of the techs liked it. Personally, I think sticking with qmail is a pretty good choice. HTH, Jacob
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 14:18, Listas barbarojo wrote: It has been developed in a modular way that makes it extreamly easy to add functionality to it and much more. Wrong. I has been developed in such a way that functionality has to be added in the form of patches, and it is suffering greatly from age now. qmail is very powerful and vpopmail makes it relatively simple to use, but it is stagnant, old, hard to use without patches and just plain old doesn't work at all if you try to use the original source on a modern system (it'll fail to compile or do strange things). DJB let this baby into the wild, but didn't allow it to find its own way. If it weren't secure and relatively well supported, it would die. I'll go a step further, if it hadn't been a godsend in 1996 compared to Sendmail, it wouldn't have gone anywhere. But, times have moved on! DJB should let it go under some license - maybe BSD or GPL, so that the community can do something with it. UCSPI-TCP and Daemontools, too. It's also hard to program for. A lot of DJB's code relationships are like a foreign language. Not that it's wrong, just that it's difficult. Qmail is a master piece, I can assure you that. I don't know why most of the distributors do not include qmail but nobody can deny that qmail has became the most powerfull and secure mailserver ever and has been growing very very fast. It was a masterpiece in 1996. Now it's just a solid mail server with just enough functionality added by patch maintainers to get the job done. No doubt it's a workhorse, I have at least 10 machines using qmail for Internet e-mail, but I've seen strange things in the 9 years I've been using it. I'm relatively happy with vpopmail + qmail + patches, but saying that qmail is some wondrous software package is bunk. It's looking mighty old these days... vpopmail and qmail should be one package that gets distributed along with modernization patches, and it would be that way if DJB didn't have his claws of death on a piece of code that he last updated in 1997. That's abandonment, and the software really is starting to creak in terms of relevancy. (go to qmail.org, i'm the one who designed the look of it... don't blame me if you don't like the layout, though...) -- Cheers, Steve |President Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services |(e pluribus unix) Multiple-T3/OC3 URL: http://www.kos.net/ |Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario | |Through the firewall, out the router, down the OC3, across the |backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net.
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
I cannot name any company name but I used to work for a large telecommunications provider. They are world leader for supplying mobile operators with core network solutions like SMS and WAP. While designing their MMS solution they had to choose an MTA to handle all the email involved in MMS. Of all the options, they choose qmail becuase it was secure, scalable and very reliable. Also their idea of scalable and reliale is 99.999% uptime and 200 msg/sec. That secures qmail as my mail server, always!! -Dougal On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:05:22 -0300 Bruno Negrão [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: does your boss have a rationale for his doubts, or are they based upon a 'gut' feeling? usually doubts arise based upon shortcomings. what shortcoming does your boss see in qmail (note, small 'q' - it is not Qmail). OK. He wants to know if there is a tendency on the market for some other mailserver. He asks me what mailservers the biggest linux/Unix distributors are using on their products. For example, what's the mailserver shipped with RedHat, Solaris, Mandrake, Debian, etc? I really don't know. I believe all of them are shipped only with Sendmail, but I'm not sure on this actually. Debian (and Ubuntu - based on Debian) and FreeBSD all use Exim by default. I'm not sure about any Linux distros other than Debian. I've seen a couple ISPs and such before that use sendmail - but that was simply a mandate from the higher ups that didn't know anything about mail servers. Evidently Sendmail was the only software name they recognized, so they decided it needed to be the only one used in their company - none of the techs liked it. Personally, I think sticking with qmail is a pretty good choice. HTH, Jacob
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:18:37 -0300 Listas barbarojo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know why most of the distributors do not include qmail Please visit http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html to find out why there are no qmail packages built. No licensing war here, please :) Thank you -- Adi Pircalabu (PGP Key ID 0x04329F5E) -- This message was scanned for spam and viruses by BitDefender. For more information please visit http://www.bitdefender.com/
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 14:18, Listas barbarojo wrote: Most of the GNU/linux distributors are using sendmail but I can assure you that the mailserver most robust, efficient and secure is by far qmail. This is simply not true anymore. It was true in 1997, and maybe right up to 1999 (I'll throw you a bone). But in 2005, qmail is far from the most efficient mail server out there. It's quite secure, but can be DDOS'ed into oblivion by someone who knows the (simple) method of doing so. Just because something works fairly well once it's up and running doesn't mean that it can't stand criticism. There's plenty of things to be critical with qmail in July of 2005. Shock... horror... the maildir format is one of them! Sendmail has been out there for a long time and too many security bugs have been found. They have been fixed though. Sendmail is now robust, secure and has extremely powerful features that qmail is completely off the map with in comparison. It's also still inefficient... but fast if you have the hardware to throw at it. That said, I don't like its licensing, I don't have the time to grok its configuration language and I have little reason to move from qmail which has been working relatively reliably on many machines of mine since 1996. -- Cheers, Steve |President Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services |(e pluribus unix) Multiple-T3/OC3 URL: http://www.kos.net/ |Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario | |Through the firewall, out the router, down the OC3, across the |backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net. |(forgive me if I'm terse, I answer hundreds of e-mails a day)
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday, July 5 at 03:05 PM, quoth Bruno Negrão: does your boss have a rationale for his doubts, or are they based upon a 'gut' feeling? usually doubts arise based upon shortcomings. what shortcoming does your boss see in qmail (note, small 'q' - it is not Qmail). OK. He wants to know if there is a tendency on the market for some other mailserver. He asks me what mailservers the biggest linux/Unix distributors are using on their products. For example, what's the mailserver shipped with RedHat, Solaris, Mandrake, Debian, etc? I really don't know. I believe all of them are shipped only with Sendmail, but I'm not sure on this actually. Well, to answer your question directly: RedHat ships with sendmail, but seems to be planning to migrate to exim. Debian ships with exim. Solaris still ships with sendmail. Mandrake ships with postfix. MacOS X ships with postfix. SuSe ships with postfix. The last general internet survey that I saw still gave sendmail a comfortable lead. Recently I believe there's been a bit of a shift from sendmail to postfix from the major distributors. But let's examine this a little bit more closely: why does he care what the tendency on the market is? I mean, if your current email needs are being met, and your forseeable email needs will be met by your current system, then there's really only three valid reasons to change it: 1. The sysadmin (you) doesn't like the current setup 2. The sysadmin (you) might not have a job soon and the management is worried that the mail system might be unintelligible to his (your) replacement. 3. The current system has cost the company something (maintenance costs or embarrassing security intrusion, for example) Disturbing as that second thought may be, there's really no other good reason to change mail systems. And, the second one is the only one that has any relation to what the tendency on the market is. ~Kyle -- UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
ok, so that gives his boss valid reasons to question getting in bed with qmail. fine, sod off djb... what else is out there thats worth using? jaymer... --- Adi Pircalabu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:18:37 -0300 Listas barbarojo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know why most of the distributors do not include qmail Please visit http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html to find out why there are no qmail packages built.
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
- Original Message - From: Jacob S [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian (and Ubuntu - based on Debian) and FreeBSD all use Exim by default. I'm not sure about any Linux distros other than Debian. FreeBSD ships sendmail (8.13.4 in the latest releases) by default. Not Exim. -steve
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday, July 5 at 02:37 PM, quoth Steve Cole: On Tuesday 05 July 2005 14:18, Listas barbarojo wrote: It has been developed in a modular way that makes it extreamly easy to add functionality to it and much more. Wrong. I has been developed in such a way that functionality has to be added in the form of patches, and it is suffering greatly from age now. qmail is very powerful and vpopmail makes it relatively simple to use, but it is stagnant, old, hard to use without patches and just plain old doesn't work at all if you try to use the original source on a modern system (it'll fail to compile or do strange things). Old? Yes. Hard to use without patches? Eh, I think netqmail has addressed that problem. Stagnant? Depends on what you mean by that. I actually really like the way qmail works for the purpose --- I know exactly what it's doing, why, and how. Additionally, the patch method, while understandably hard or inconveninent for people who do not know C or who prefer the ./configure interface for turning on features, is a good way to do it for the security-paranoid who would rather trace out each addition rather than review code and try to untangle giant webs of #ifdef's. DJB let this baby into the wild, but didn't allow it to find its own way. If it weren't secure and relatively well supported, it would die. I'll go a step further, if it hadn't been a godsend in 1996 compared to Sendmail, it wouldn't have gone anywhere. But, times have moved on! DJB should let it go under some license - maybe BSD or GPL, so that the community can do something with it. UCSPI-TCP and Daemontools, too. I wish it had a license like that too. On the other hand, he put his name (and $500) behind it - something he really couldn't do if just anybody could add code to it and call it qmail. But look at it this way: there's nothing in the license that says you can't take qmail, rename it to (mySweetMailserver, for example), and release it under the GPL. That nobody's done that says something. It's also hard to program for. A lot of DJB's code relationships are like a foreign language. Not that it's wrong, just that it's difficult. I disagree - I find most of the code refreshingly straightforward. Comments might help, but I think it's really pretty simple to decipher. I'm relatively happy with vpopmail + qmail + patches, but saying that qmail is some wondrous software package is bunk. Heh, indeed - very little software is wondrous. It's looking mighty old these days... You say that like old is a bad thing. vpopmail and qmail should be one package that gets distributed along with modernization patches, and it would be that way if DJB didn't have his claws of death on a piece of code that he last updated in 1997. That's abandonment, and the software really is starting to creak in terms of relevancy. creak? Gotta love loaded adjectives. I look at it this way: qmail was released in its current form in 1997, which is nearly a decade ago. In the fast-paced world of software development, like dog-years, that's practically a century ago. And yet, like the Franklin Stove, it still does exactly what it was designed to do. There've been some complaints about how you should install it (the default INSTALL isn't very good), how you compile it (glibc changed its interface), and some people dislike its lack of built-in support for features like smtp-auth (and work around it with patches or programs like mailfront). But in terms of complaints over nearly a decade, that's a stunningly low number of problems, none of them actually serious. I think it says something about the ease of maintenance, ease of patching, and ease of configuration that qmail has lasted this long virtually unchanged. Creak? Far from it. While it may be harder to install than ./configure make make install, I don't see any reason to think qmail isn't up to the task anymore. ~Kyle -- I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. -- Gallileo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 13:51:49 -0500 Steve Ames [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jacob S [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian (and Ubuntu - based on Debian) and FreeBSD all use Exim by default. I'm not sure about any Linux distros other than Debian. FreeBSD ships sendmail (8.13.4 in the latest releases) by default. Not Exim. whoops... I confused a default FreeBSD install with one modified by the cPanel (ugh!) installation. Sorry. Jacob
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
dude, yahoo uses qmail, nuff said! - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vchkpw@inter7.com Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 1:39 PM Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail? I cannot name any company name but I used to work for a large telecommunications provider. They are world leader for supplying mobile operators with core network solutions like SMS and WAP. While designing their MMS solution they had to choose an MTA to handle all the email involved in MMS. Of all the options, they choose qmail becuase it was secure, scalable and very reliable. Also their idea of scalable and reliale is 99.999% uptime and 200 msg/sec. That secures qmail as my mail server, always!! -Dougal On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:05:22 -0300 Bruno Negrão [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: does your boss have a rationale for his doubts, or are they based upon a 'gut' feeling? usually doubts arise based upon shortcomings. what shortcoming does your boss see in qmail (note, small 'q' - it is not Qmail). OK. He wants to know if there is a tendency on the market for some other mailserver. He asks me what mailservers the biggest linux/Unix distributors are using on their products. For example, what's the mailserver shipped with RedHat, Solaris, Mandrake, Debian, etc? I really don't know. I believe all of them are shipped only with Sendmail, but I'm not sure on this actually. Debian (and Ubuntu - based on Debian) and FreeBSD all use Exim by default. I'm not sure about any Linux distros other than Debian. I've seen a couple ISPs and such before that use sendmail - but that was simply a mandate from the higher ups that didn't know anything about mail servers. Evidently Sendmail was the only software name they recognized, so they decided it needed to be the only one used in their company - none of the techs liked it. Personally, I think sticking with qmail is a pretty good choice. HTH, Jacob
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 15:13, Kyle Wheeler wrote: Old? Yes. Hard to use without patches? Eh, I think netqmail has addressed that problem. Don't quote problem. It has real problems. errno.h is a nice start. netqmail is at best a hacked-together solution for a small set of problems. It offers very little functionality over the original qmail. A big thank-you to the maintainers of netqmail, however. Stagnant? Depends on what you mean by that. Hrm, let's see. It doesn't have a spam or antivirus subsystem, API, hooks, etc. at all. Slapping alternatives into qmail-queue works but it's the least elegant solution I can imagine. While other products are including in-process checking for spam viruses (using libclamav, for example) with extensibility, we have... erhm... ugly, buggy, inefficient roll-it-yourself solutions to the problem. Inter7 has a more reasonable solution to the problem, but they have to eat, so it's partially commercial. Don't even try to tell me that spam and virus activity isn't anything to do with e-mail today. How about a management interface? vpopmail has limited visibility out there in the world because it's a separate package, and it could be more integrated if the qmail code wasn't locked up in a restrictive license. But all-in-all, it's an add-on in the broadest sense of the word. Other mail systems have this kind of support integrated, now. What about logging? qmail's logging is poor, spotty, undocumented and depends on other packages to do the brunt of the work. Effiency - in a modern mail system (vpopmail + spam + virus protection), qmail is a dog. If you run it clean without any features except shovelling files around, it will do just OK with a good deal of tuning. In stock form, it is nowhere near enterprise-ready (hell, won't even compile on most systems anymore). Dropping antispam/antivirus functionality to procmail and PERL scripts destroys a mail server in short order. This has made a lot of qmail users turn to Barracuda or an outsourced spam/virus checking service. If they'd chosen something else as a mail server sometime after 1999 when it made sense, they wouldn't be required. POP3, IMAP, POP3S, IMAPS. SMTP-AUTH, SQL support, fine-grained limitations, a finished QMTP. qmail's pop3 server is stone-age and everything else is just not there. How about flow control? Need to say, I need to limit senders to 1,000 addresses in a single e-mail. And furthermore, I need to limit them to a maximum of 512MB of data transfer per message. And another thing, I need to set up mailbox quotas with flexible accounting that doesn't depend on file system quotas - or UNIX users in fact. Some patches are available, but they're very hacky, buggy, and not well integrated into qmail. actually really like the way qmail works for the purpose --- I know exactly what it's doing, why, and how. Good. But you're not the only one using qmail. while understandably hard or inconveninent for people who do not know C or who prefer the ./configure interface for turning on features, is a good way to do it for the security-paranoid who would rather trace out each addition rather than review code and try to untangle giant webs of #ifdef's. If it was in the base tarball source, what's to prevent you from doing the same? This is a poor argument, IMHO. I wish it had a license like that too. On the other hand, he put his name (and $500) behind it - something he really couldn't do if just anybody could add code to it and call it qmail. Then he let it quietly age and more or less die. If it weren't for legacy mail systems and long-time believers, qmail would be dead right now. It more or less is... almost nobody ships it as a default, and from what I have seen, most distributions hack/slash/move/modify the crap out of it until a long-time qmail admin will be pulling out her hair in frustration trying to figure out what they did to the filesystem layout. And really, putting everything in /var/qmail was ridiculous. So is daemontools, even if it works... but that's another discussion. But look at it this way: there's nothing in the license that says you can't take qmail, rename it to (mySweetMailserver, for example), and release it under the GPL. That nobody's done that says something. Yes, there certainly is. The license (as I understand it) prohibits it. I disagree - I find most of the code refreshingly straightforward. Comments might help, but I think it's really pretty simple to decipher. Many people disagree with you. This is subjective, I guess. It's looking mighty old these days... You say that like old is a bad thing. In the software industry, it's anathaema. like the Franklin Stove, it still does exactly what it was designed to do. How many Franklin Stoves are they selling today? :) But in terms of complaints over nearly a decade, that's a stunningly low number of problems, none of them actually
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
Eh, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the question like; Why should I use qmail? and not Why shouldn't I use qmail? Just trying to point us back in the right direction. Steve Cole wrote: On Tuesday 05 July 2005 15:13, Kyle Wheeler wrote: Old? Yes. Hard to use without patches? Eh, I think netqmail has addressed that problem. Don't quote problem. It has real problems. errno.h is a nice start. netqmail is at best a hacked-together solution for a small set of problems. It offers very little functionality over the original qmail. A big thank-you to the maintainers of netqmail, however. Stagnant? Depends on what you mean by that. Hrm, let's see. It doesn't have a spam or antivirus subsystem, API, hooks, etc. at all. Slapping alternatives into qmail-queue works but it's the least elegant solution I can imagine. While other products are including in-process checking for spam viruses (using libclamav, for example) with extensibility, we have... erhm... ugly, buggy, inefficient roll-it-yourself solutions to the problem. Inter7 has a more reasonable solution to the problem, but they have to eat, so it's partially commercial. Don't even try to tell me that spam and virus activity isn't anything to do with e-mail today. How about a management interface? vpopmail has limited visibility out there in the world because it's a separate package, and it could be more integrated if the qmail code wasn't locked up in a restrictive license. But all-in-all, it's an add-on in the broadest sense of the word. Other mail systems have this kind of support integrated, now. What about logging? qmail's logging is poor, spotty, undocumented and depends on other packages to do the brunt of the work. Effiency - in a modern mail system (vpopmail + spam + virus protection), qmail is a dog. If you run it clean without any features except shovelling files around, it will do just OK with a good deal of tuning. In stock form, it is nowhere near enterprise-ready (hell, won't even compile on most systems anymore). Dropping antispam/antivirus functionality to procmail and PERL scripts destroys a mail server in short order. This has made a lot of qmail users turn to Barracuda or an outsourced spam/virus checking service. If they'd chosen something else as a mail server sometime after 1999 when it made sense, they wouldn't be required. POP3, IMAP, POP3S, IMAPS. SMTP-AUTH, SQL support, fine-grained limitations, a finished QMTP. qmail's pop3 server is stone-age and everything else is just not there. How about flow control? Need to say, I need to limit senders to 1,000 addresses in a single e-mail. And furthermore, I need to limit them to a maximum of 512MB of data transfer per message. And another thing, I need to set up mailbox quotas with flexible accounting that doesn't depend on file system quotas - or UNIX users in fact. Some patches are available, but they're very hacky, buggy, and not well integrated into qmail. actually really like the way qmail works for the purpose --- I know exactly what it's doing, why, and how. Good. But you're not the only one using qmail. while understandably hard or inconveninent for people who do not know C or who prefer the ./configure interface for turning on features, is a good way to do it for the security-paranoid who would rather trace out each addition rather than review code and try to untangle giant webs of #ifdef's. If it was in the base tarball source, what's to prevent you from doing the same? This is a poor argument, IMHO. I wish it had a license like that too. On the other hand, he put his name (and $500) behind it - something he really couldn't do if just anybody could add code to it and call it qmail. Then he let it quietly age and more or less die. If it weren't for legacy mail systems and long-time believers, qmail would be dead right now. It more or less is... almost nobody ships it as a default, and from what I have seen, most distributions hack/slash/move/modify the crap out of it until a long-time qmail admin will be pulling out her hair in frustration trying to figure out what they did to the filesystem layout. And really, putting everything in /var/qmail was ridiculous. So is daemontools, even if it works... but that's another discussion. But look at it this way: there's nothing in the license that says you can't take qmail, rename it to (mySweetMailserver, for example), and release it under the GPL. That nobody's done that says something. Yes, there certainly is. The license (as I understand it) prohibits it. I disagree - I find most of the code refreshingly straightforward. Comments might help, but I think it's really pretty simple to decipher. Many people disagree with you. This is subjective, I guess. It's looking mighty old these days... You say that like old is a bad thing. In the software
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:20, James McMillan wrote: Why should I use qmail? Then, the answer is probably: If you're already using it, and it's adequate or too costly to switch. These days, that pretty much sums it up. -- Cheers, Steve |President Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services |(e pluribus unix) Multiple-T3/OC3 URL: http://www.kos.net/ |Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario | |Through the firewall, out the router, down the OC3, across the |backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net.
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 1:05 pm, Bruno Negrão wrote: does your boss have a rationale for his doubts, or are they based upon a 'gut' feeling? usually doubts arise based upon shortcomings. what shortcoming does your boss see in qmail (note, small 'q' - it is not Qmail). OK. He wants to know if there is a tendency on the market for some other mailserver. He asks me what mailservers the biggest linux/Unix distributors are using on their products. For example, what's the mailserver shipped with RedHat, Solaris, Mandrake, Debian, etc? I really don't know. I believe all of them are shipped only with Sendmail, but I'm not sure on this actually. I'm not sure if it's been mentioned yet but RedHat wanted to use Qmail to replace sendmail in their distributions. But they wanted to change the directory structure and Dan Bernstein objected. So no qmail in RedHat. We like qmail for many reasons, mostly because it is efficent and it never breaks. Personally I like it because it is designed well. Once you understand Dan's coding style, it is easy to modify to add new features. Ken Jones
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:28, Ken Jones wrote: We like qmail for many reasons, mostly because it is efficent and it never breaks. I've had it stop running enough times that I run /etc/init.d/qmailq start every hour, just so that I can be sure it will continue (we get over 500K mail per day, and queues infuriate users). It only quits maybe once a month or so, but luckily running /etc/init.d/qmailq doesn't break anything. never is a strong word, that's all. :) -- Cheers, Steve |President Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services |(e pluribus unix) Multiple-T3/OC3 URL: http://www.kos.net/ |Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario | |Through the firewall, out the router, down the OC3, across the |backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net.
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
Maybe you have some other issues... On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:28, Ken Jones wrote: We like qmail for many reasons, mostly because it is efficent and it never breaks. I've had it stop running enough times that I run /etc/init.d/qmailq start every hour, just so that I can be sure it will continue (we get over 500K mail per day, and queues infuriate users). It only quits maybe once a month or so, but luckily running /etc/init.d/qmailq doesn't break anything. never is a strong word, that's all. :) -- Cheers, Steve |President Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services |(e pluribus unix) Multiple-T3/OC3 URL: http://www.kos.net/ |Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario | |Through the firewall, out the router, down the OC3, across the |backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net.
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe you have some other issues... I'm sure that's it. Probably the same issue on Solaris 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, Linux 2.0, 2.4, 2.6, FreeBSD 4.1, 4.3, and SCO. After all, the symptoms are the same... qmail-send dies. I'm sorry, what was the question again? -- Cheers, Steve |President Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services |(e pluribus unix) Multiple-T3/OC3 URL: http://www.kos.net/ |Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario | |Through the firewall, out the router, down the OC3, across the |backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net.
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
At 01:37 PM 7/5/2005, Steve Cole wrote: On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe you have some other issues... I'm sure that's it. Probably the same issue on Solaris 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, Linux 2.0, 2.4, 2.6, FreeBSD 4.1, 4.3, and SCO. After all, the symptoms are the same... qmail-send dies. I'm sorry, what was the question again? i've been running qmail since 1998 across solaris 2.5.1, 2.7, 2.9, assorted linuxes, and freebsd 5.x, and have *never* had qmail-send die. not a single, solitary time. yes, this is on high volume servers (national ISP infrastructure). i won't speculate where the problem actually lies. That should be obvious. Paul Theodoropoulos http://www.anastrophe.com http://www.smileglobal.com
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:45, Paul Theodoropoulos wrote: yes, this is on high volume servers (national ISP infrastructure). i won't speculate where the problem actually lies. That should be obvious. I agree. It should be. -- Cheers, Steve |President Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services |(e pluribus unix) Multiple-T3/OC3 URL: http://www.kos.net/ |Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario | |Through the firewall, out the router, down the OC3, across the |backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net.
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
Steve Cole wrote: On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:45, Paul Theodoropoulos wrote: yes, this is on high volume servers (national ISP infrastructure). i won't speculate where the problem actually lies. That should be obvious. I agree. It should be. Yes. I've configured qmail on many different boxes of just about every Unix-based system, and I've never seen it mysteriously die except for situations where later we discovered hardware or admin failure. Even on large systems processing upwards of 10 messages/second sustained. What patches do you have, and are any of them custom? -- /* Matt Brookings [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key 7D7E5F37 Software developer Systems technician Inter7 Internet Technologies, Inc. (815)776-9465 */
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
Hi everybody, Thank you very much for the info. Let me tell more info about us. We already use Qmail in our 6 mailservers for 4 years. I installed all of them. I even wrote http://www.qmailwiki.org/Simscan/Related_Docs/Simscan_ClamAV_Chkuser_Installation_Guide What means I'm used to the Qmail+Inter7-tools+Patches lifestyle, I know it works. Let me tell you some things we(specially him) don't like in Qmail, some of them were already mentioned: 1) the fact that qmail stopped being developed so every improvement has to be made craftily: applying patches, install a bunch of administrative tools, install antivirus, etc. All these procedures are made manually, there's no Super Qmail 2005 package, with all the pieces already gathered. 2) a lot of research is needed to find how to install each improvement. This time could be used for other things, of course. So there is a cost here. 3) We don't have personnel and don't intend to dedicade C programmers to develop patches for qmail by ourselves. My boss actually dreams on making us a mail outsourcer for other companies.We are already a small ISP, but he dreams about our customers stop using their MS Outlook's to use our supposed beautiful webmail/domain-administration solution of his dreams. So he wants to know if there is something already close to it on the open-source market. He wants to know if there is something ready. (don't get mad with me, I'm just researching what he asked) What's bad on inter7 tools? For example, my boss thinks Sqwebmail is ugly, and it really is. But, IMP is a pain in the ass to set it up. We substituted Sqwebmail to IMP, but when I have to update IMP I almost break down and cry. Sqwebmail is easy and ugly, IMP is handsome and very complicated to install. But we're happy with Qmailadmin though. But could be nicer if Sqwebmail and Qmailadmin were integrated and very good looking, providing a continuos look and feel pattern. I want to comment what Kyle said here: But look at it this way: there's nothing in the license that says you can't take qmail, rename it to (mySweetMailserver, for example), and release it under the GPL. That nobody's done that says something. I don't understand about licensing, but I researching on Qmail-ldap, I heard it is licensed under BSD which is DFSG-free - having this licensing, could it be shipped with the distributions? Do you have some opinion on Qmail-ldap? Some ideas with webmail applications and domain administration? Best regards, bnegrao
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
So hollistic has this internet of humans has become. I was actually trying to research how to make vpopmail work with postfix because i HATE the way (or lack thereoff) we have in qmail to put an extra email in each email sent (like a disclaimer or non disclosure text in each email). It seems postfix has a very well documented way to do this, and it seems ive found a page (in italian) that tells me its also doable in qmail... Im tired of relying on web pages i scarecely know off to fix my qmail problems. I want to move to postfix because its so well documented. So, where can i find the documents to move my vpopmail install from qmail to postfix? On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 14:37 -0400, Steve Cole wrote: On Tuesday 05 July 2005 14:18, Listas barbarojo wrote: It has been developed in a modular way that makes it extreamly easy to add functionality to it and much more. Wrong. I has been developed in such a way that functionality has to be added in the form of patches, and it is suffering greatly from age now. qmail is very powerful and vpopmail makes it relatively simple to use, but it is stagnant, old, hard to use without patches and just plain old doesn't work at all if you try to use the original source on a modern system (it'll fail to compile or do strange things). DJB let this baby into the wild, but didn't allow it to find its own way. If it weren't secure and relatively well supported, it would die. I'll go a step further, if it hadn't been a godsend in 1996 compared to Sendmail, it wouldn't have gone anywhere. But, times have moved on! DJB should let it go under some license - maybe BSD or GPL, so that the community can do something with it. UCSPI-TCP and Daemontools, too. It's also hard to program for. A lot of DJB's code relationships are like a foreign language. Not that it's wrong, just that it's difficult. Qmail is a master piece, I can assure you that. I don't know why most of the distributors do not include qmail but nobody can deny that qmail has became the most powerfull and secure mailserver ever and has been growing very very fast. It was a masterpiece in 1996. Now it's just a solid mail server with just enough functionality added by patch maintainers to get the job done. No doubt it's a workhorse, I have at least 10 machines using qmail for Internet e-mail, but I've seen strange things in the 9 years I've been using it. I'm relatively happy with vpopmail + qmail + patches, but saying that qmail is some wondrous software package is bunk. It's looking mighty old these days... vpopmail and qmail should be one package that gets distributed along with modernization patches, and it would be that way if DJB didn't have his claws of death on a piece of code that he last updated in 1997. That's abandonment, and the software really is starting to creak in terms of relevancy. (go to qmail.org, i'm the one who designed the look of it... don't blame me if you don't like the layout, though...)
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday, July 5 at 06:19 PM, quoth Bruno Negrão: 3) We don't have personnel and don't intend to dedicade C programmers to develop patches for qmail by ourselves. Out of curiosity, how frequently do you find the need to patch qmail? I would have thought it was a decide what it needs to do, patch qmail to do that, then install ignore kind of process. My boss actually dreams on making us a mail outsourcer for other companies.We are already a small ISP, but he dreams about our customers stop using their MS Outlook's to use our supposed beautiful webmail/domain-administration solution of his dreams. So he wants to know if there is something already close to it on the open-source market. He wants to know if there is something ready. (don't get mad with me, I'm just researching what he asked) Ahh... well, don't get too anxious for people to drop their MS Outlooks. I've yet to see a webmail that provides the speed and convenience (and offline access) that a good client-side mail browser can (not that I'm defending MS Outlook or anything). What's bad on inter7 tools? For example, my boss thinks Sqwebmail is ugly, and it really is. But, IMP is a pain in the ass to set it up. We substituted Sqwebmail to IMP, but when I have to update IMP I almost break down and cry. Sqwebmail is easy and ugly, IMP is handsome and very complicated to install. I've been very happy with squirrelmail. The interface is fairly customizeable (especially given that it's written in PHP with CSS stylesheets), it has a lot of useful plugins, and upgrading it is a breeze: just replace the folder full of php scripts (I've done it by hand before, and I currently use the Debian package -- they're about equally as easy). I can change the configuration per-domain by using the vlogin plugin (www.squirrelmail.org/plugin_view.php?id=47). Of course, ymmv. But we're happy with Qmailadmin though. But could be nicer if Sqwebmail and Qmailadmin were integrated and very good looking, providing a continuos look and feel pattern. The best I've gotten here is a homemade tiny squirrelmail plugin that puts a link to qmailadmin on the squirrelmail login page. If anyone's interested, I can post it (though it's really and truly trivial). But look at it this way: there's nothing in the license that says you can't take qmail, rename it to (mySweetMailserver, for example), and release it under the GPL. That nobody's done that says something. I don't understand about licensing, but I researching on Qmail-ldap, I heard it is licensed under BSD which is DFSG-free - having this licensing, could it be shipped with the distributions? Do you have some opinion on Qmail-ldap? Mmm, not exactly. Qmail-ldap is based on qmail (as I understand, it's a big patch to qmail). The patch itself has a license (BSD) which is separate from qmail-proper. However, I've never used qmail-ldap. Though all my account information is stored in ldap, I've stuck with using vpopmail's ldap support. Some ideas with webmail applications and domain administration? Definitely give squirrelmail a go. As far as domain administration goes... have you checked out Inter7's offerings? They have vqadmin, vqregister, and vqsignup which I think would do a lot of what you want. -- The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about anything, and that all the pains that I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have only wasted my time. -- George Bernard Shaw signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
Same to me! Qmail has been a great piece of software in the past but its definitly to old in the meanwhile an I hate doing all the patch stuff to get an almost up to date smtp-server. But as far as i know the only way to integrate it with postfix is a qmail backend :-( So I think i have to look for a different solution for the future. Alex Borges wrote: So hollistic has this internet of humans has become. I was actually trying to research how to make vpopmail work with postfix because i HATE the way (or lack thereoff) we have in qmail to put an extra email in each email sent (like a disclaimer or non disclosure text in each email). It seems postfix has a very well documented way to do this, and it seems ive found a page (in italian) that tells me its also doable in qmail... Im tired of relying on web pages i scarecely know off to fix my qmail problems. I want to move to postfix because its so well documented. So, where can i find the documents to move my vpopmail install from qmail to postfix? On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 14:37 -0400, Steve Cole wrote: On Tuesday 05 July 2005 14:18, Listas barbarojo wrote: It has been developed in a modular way that makes it extreamly easy to add functionality to it and much more. Wrong. I has been developed in such a way that functionality has to be added in the form of patches, and it is suffering greatly from age now. qmail is very powerful and vpopmail makes it relatively simple to use, but it is stagnant, old, hard to use without patches and just plain old doesn't work at all if you try to use the original source on a modern system (it'll fail to compile or do strange things). DJB let this baby into the wild, but didn't allow it to find its own way. If it weren't secure and relatively well supported, it would die. I'll go a step further, if it hadn't been a godsend in 1996 compared to Sendmail, it wouldn't have gone anywhere. But, times have moved on! DJB should let it go under some license - maybe BSD or GPL, so that the community can do something with it. UCSPI-TCP and Daemontools, too. It's also hard to program for. A lot of DJB's code relationships are like a foreign language. Not that it's wrong, just that it's difficult. Qmail is a master piece, I can assure you that. I don't know why most of the distributors do not include qmail but nobody can deny that qmail has became the most powerfull and secure mailserver ever and has been growing very very fast. It was a masterpiece in 1996. Now it's just a solid mail server with just enough functionality added by patch maintainers to get the job done. No doubt it's a workhorse, I have at least 10 machines using qmail for Internet e-mail, but I've seen strange things in the 9 years I've been using it. I'm relatively happy with vpopmail + qmail + patches, but saying that qmail is some wondrous software package is bunk. It's looking mighty old these days... vpopmail and qmail should be one package that gets distributed along with modernization patches, and it would be that way if DJB didn't have his claws of death on a piece of code that he last updated in 1997. That's abandonment, and the software really is starting to creak in terms of relevancy. (go to qmail.org, i'm the one who designed the look of it... don't blame me if you don't like the layout, though...) smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 17:19, Bruno Negrão wrote: What's bad on inter7 tools? For example, my boss thinks Sqwebmail is ugly, and it really is. But, IMP is a pain in the ass to set it up. We substituted Sqwebmail to IMP, but when I have to update IMP I almost break down and cry. Sqwebmail is easy and ugly, IMP is handsome and very complicated to install. How about Squirrelmail? TWIG is a little fugly, but it's back in releases again and works very well. But we're happy with Qmailadmin though. But could be nicer if Sqwebmail and Qmailadmin were integrated and very good looking, providing a continuos look and feel pattern. Not workable, IMHO. Not necessarily desirable, either. Qmailadmin has some little warts but works very well. I'm relatively happy with it, personally. Big improvements are needed in vqadmin, however. I don't understand about licensing, but I researching on Qmail-ldap, I heard it is licensed under BSD which is DFSG-free - having this licensing, could it be shipped with the distributions? Do you have some opinion on Qmail-ldap? qmail-ldap is a patch. -- Cheers, Steve |President Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services |(e pluribus unix) Multiple-T3/OC3 URL: http://www.kos.net/ |Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario | |Through the firewall, out the router, down the OC3, across the |backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net.
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 17:43, Alex Borges wrote: So, where can i find the documents to move my vpopmail install from qmail to postfix? I haven't done it. Too many problems and risks for me. But Google probably has the answer to that. -- Cheers, Steve |President Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services |(e pluribus unix) Multiple-T3/OC3 URL: http://www.kos.net/ |Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario | |Through the firewall, out the router, down the OC3, across the |backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net.
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
I don't understand about licensing, but I researching on Qmail-ldap, I heard it is licensed under BSD which is DFSG-free - having this licensing, could it be shipped with the distributions? Do you have some opinion on Qmail-ldap? Mmm, not exactly. Qmail-ldap is based on qmail (as I understand, it's a big patch to qmail). The patch itself has a license (BSD) which is separate from qmail-proper. However, I've never used qmail-ldap. Though all my account information is stored in ldap, I've stuck with using vpopmail's ldap support. Yes, qmail-ldap is a big patch to qmail. You just install qmail, apply qmail-ldap and you have qmail+a lot of features including antispam, chkuser, QMAILQUEUE, etc. With ldap backend for everything. In qmail-ldap, every mail account has a mailhost attribute that says in what server the Maildir for that particular user should be. This feature enables you to set up a central MX 0 for your domain who will receive all the e-mail for that domain, and then it will forward the messages to their final destinations in remote qmail-ldap servers, all of them sharing the same domain name. My dream (not of my boss) is if Inter7 started developing its nice tools for qmail-ldap too. So I could create a user account in my central mailserver in new york using vadduser with the following 3 parameters form: vadduser [EMAIL PROTECTED] jonhspassword saopaulo.myenterprise.com.br This means that every email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] goes to the MX 0 in NY and then it's forwarded to the mailserver of the brazilian office. What qmail-ldap lacks now, in my opinion, are the Inter7 tools. And maybe, i don't know, Inter7 can be lacking qmail-ldap too. Well, at least this is my dream... Regards, bruno.
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 17:45, Kyle Wheeler wrote: Ahh... well, don't get too anxious for people to drop their MS Outlooks. I've yet to see a webmail that provides the speed and convenience (and offline access) that a good client-side mail browser can (not that I'm defending MS Outlook or anything). Here's how: PHP4.x eaccelerator, zend accelerator or turck-mmcache Squirrelmail w/Zlib compression turned on ImapProxyD Courier Imap w/Inotify(Dnotify if you must) Linux 2.6 kernels all around I'm always amazed when I have to use our webmail for some reason. It's blinding fast. hand before, and I currently use the Debian package -- they're about Great. Now apt-get install imapproxy, configure and marvel. :) The best I've gotten here is a homemade tiny squirrelmail plugin that puts a link to qmailadmin on the squirrelmail login page. If anyone's interested, I can post it (though it's really and truly trivial). Sure, if it's a plugin. That would possibly save me some editing time for updates. -- Cheers, Steve |President Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services |(e pluribus unix) Multiple-T3/OC3 URL: http://www.kos.net/ |Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario | |Through the firewall, out the router, down the OC3, across the |backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net. |(forgive me if I'm terse, I answer hundreds of e-mails a day)
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
Bruno Negrão wrote: Hi everybody, Thank you very much for the info. Let me tell more info about us. We already use Qmail in our 6 mailservers for 4 years. I installed all of them. I even wrote http://www.qmailwiki.org/Simscan/Related_Docs/Simscan_ClamAV_Chkuser_Installation_Guide What means I'm used to the Qmail+Inter7-tools+Patches lifestyle, I know it works. Let me tell you some things we(specially him) don't like in Qmail, some of them were already mentioned: 1) the fact that qmail stopped being developed so every improvement has to be made craftily: applying patches, install a bunch of administrative tools, install antivirus, etc. All these procedures are made manually, there's no Super Qmail 2005 package, with all the pieces already gathered. Well, hold on here. There is, but they are developed by people independently of DJB, obviously. What they are called (Get your Google finger ready) are Mail Toasters based on qmail, net-qmail, etc. If I remember correctly, you will find two big ones out there -- Shupp and Matt Simerson. I use a Mail Toaster based on Matt's, using FreeBSD. There also seems to be something called qmailrocks, but I don't generally hear as good reports as from the Toasters. You will need to choose one of these that installs fast, has a large user base, and is constantly being updated. Of course, it will need to support your platform, and have users which are familiar with your OS. In 2005, these are your choices for qmail and a rolled-into-one package. Maybe someone will put one on a bootable CD or something that you can install en masse on a bunch, or every time you want another mail server. But for now, they are all linked to the couple of dozen ports and packages which can change at any minute (everything from openssl to perl to spamassassin) When you see what is rolled into the Toasters -- you could make a few mistakes. #1, assume everything included is for you. #2, assume some of the stuff included is worthless. Look into each unfamiliar port or app they install to see if they are worth adding to your already complicated installation. Maybe after a while of testing the basics (say 3 to 6 months), you might get a glimmer and realize how you really could use app-x. 2) a lot of research is needed to find how to install each improvement. This time could be used for other things, of course. So there is a cost here. 3) We don't have personnel and don't intend to dedicade C programmers to develop patches for qmail by ourselves. My boss actually dreams on making us a mail outsourcer for other companies.We are already a small ISP, but he dreams about our customers stop using their MS Outlook's to use our supposed beautiful webmail/domain-administration solution of his dreams. So he wants to know if there is something already close to it on the open-source market. He wants to know if there is something ready. (don't get mad with me, I'm just researching what he asked) What's bad on inter7 tools? For example, my boss thinks Sqwebmail is ugly, and it really is. But, IMP is a pain in the ass to set it up. We substituted Sqwebmail to IMP, but when I have to update IMP I almost break down and cry. Sqwebmail is easy and ugly, IMP is handsome and very complicated to install. But we're happy with Qmailadmin though. But could be nicer if Sqwebmail and Qmailadmin were integrated and very good looking, providing a continuos look and feel pattern. When I saw Squirrelmail a few years ago, I cried as I installed all the nifty plugin stuff for it. But once installed, they really haven't gone through drastic changes in the source code since, so I have enjoyed a nice webmail for years, and no hassles doing upgrades. I just know it can be difficult to figure out all the pretty plugins I use (about 40, some stock). I will say this: sqwebmail is ridiculous. Dump it. Squirrelmail over the years has never really given me a glitch. I wrote, by the way, a lot of the Wiki on installing SquirrelMail to a Windows box. I run both Windows and UNIX squirrelmail servers. Both run quite well. I would recommend an imapproxy for this and any webmail server, though, for speed. I want to comment what Kyle said here: But look at it this way: there's nothing in the license that says you can't take qmail, rename it to (mySweetMailserver, for example), and release it under the GPL. That nobody's done that says something. I don't understand about licensing, but I researching on Qmail-ldap, I heard it is licensed under BSD which is DFSG-free - having this licensing, could it be shipped with the distributions? Do you have some opinion on Qmail-ldap? Some ideas with webmail applications and domain administration? Best regards, bnegrao Overall, I would say, the new development in qmail is done by the folks which bundle up net-qmail, which is at revision 1.05. That is what to tell your boss -- DJB is basically
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:33:25PM -0400, Steve Cole wrote: I've had it stop running enough times that I run /etc/init.d/qmailq start every hour, just so that I can be sure it will continue (we get over 500K mail per day, and queues infuriate users). It only quits maybe once a month or so, but luckily running /etc/init.d/qmailq doesn't break anything. I never installed anything big, but as a summer job I worked for 1 months in my friend's ISP where one RH ES was handling around the same load (maybe a bit less) nicely. I was the only person looking after it for that period and I never had to kill qmail-send. Maybe I had to send ALRM a couple of times, but other than that no worries at all. And the best part of qmail(/daemontools) as I always say that I can sleep peacefully knowing that qmail will be doing its work and so far for me it has. With warm regards, -Payal
RE: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
Amen -Original Message- From: Payal Rathod [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 12:27 AM To: vchkpw@inter7.com Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail? On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:33:25PM -0400, Steve Cole wrote: I've had it stop running enough times that I run /etc/init.d/qmailq start every hour, just so that I can be sure it will continue (we get over 500K mail per day, and queues infuriate users). It only quits maybe once a month or so, but luckily running /etc/init.d/qmailq doesn't break anything. I never installed anything big, but as a summer job I worked for 1 months in my friend's ISP where one RH ES was handling around the same load (maybe a bit less) nicely. I was the only person looking after it for that period and I never had to kill qmail-send. Maybe I had to send ALRM a couple of times, but other than that no worries at all. And the best part of qmail(/daemontools) as I always say that I can sleep peacefully knowing that qmail will be doing its work and so far for me it has. With warm regards, -Payal
