[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Budde) wrote on 21.06.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Am 20.06.97 schrieb kai # khms.westfalen.de ...
Moin Kai!
KH I completely fail to understand why a professional system administrator
KH would _want_ to use a MTA that's _that_ notorious for security holes. My
KH idea of
Am 20.06.97 schrieb kai # khms.westfalen.de ...
Moin Kai!
KH I completely fail to understand why a professional system administrator
KH would _want_ to use a MTA that's _that_ notorious for security holes. My
KH idea of professionalism seriously clashes with this.
Who tells you that the other
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Budde) wrote on 16.06.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Am 16.06.97 schrieb efraim # argh.org ...
Moin Alexander!
AK sendmail: too complicated
That's wrong. It's very easy to configure sendmail with the m4 scripts for
a leaf site. And professionell system adminstrators
Hi,
This discussion seems to keep getting side tracked with
``program X does not support feature Y''
type statements.
In the case of qmail at least, I'd just like to emphasise that every feature
that I've wanted (or seen asked for on the qmail list), that is not explicitly
included in
Philip Hands wrote:
I think we should seriously consider using qmail as our default MTA. It's
only real weakness lies in it's documentation, and that should be reasonably
easy to fix.
AFAIK, qmail is highly antisocial WRT the number of connections it forces
on a recipient host.
This is not
I think we should also consider switching to Maildir/ format for mail drops,
since it seems to be the only way for delivering mail securely over NFS.
I think we should try to stick with solutions that work with both
Maildir and central spool directories, since otherwise it is difficult
to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Philip Hands wrote:
I think we should also consider switching to Maildir/ format for mail drops,
since it seems to be the only way for delivering mail securely over NFS.
procmail does also deliver mail securely over NFS.
(At least this
I think we should also consider switching to Maildir/ format for mail drops,
since it seems to be the only way for delivering mail securely over NFS.
I think we should try to stick with solutions that work with both
Maildir and central spool directories, since otherwise it is difficult
to
Philip Hands wrote:
I think we should seriously consider using qmail as our default MTA. It's
only real weakness lies in it's documentation, and that should be reasonably
easy to fix.
AFAIK, qmail is highly antisocial WRT the number of connections it forces
on a recipient host.
This
From: Thomas Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AFAIK, qmail is highly antisocial WRT the number of connections it forces
on a recipient host.
It hasn't had this problem for several revisions. It limits the number
of connections it tries to one system so that it won't hang a bunch
of mail delivery
Am 16.06.97 schrieb efraim # argh.org ...
Moin Alexander!
AK sendmail: too complicated
That's wrong. It's very easy to configure sendmail with the m4 scripts for
a leaf site. And professionell system adminstrators will use sendmail
because it's the standard MTA.
And you should remember that
Am 16.06.97 schrieb efraim # argh.org ...
Moin Alexander!
AK sendmail: too complicated
That's wrong. It's very easy to configure sendmail with the m4 scripts for
a leaf site. And professionell system adminstrators will use sendmail
because it's the standard MTA.
And you should remember that
Alexander Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(I'd vote for exim if uucp is guaranteed to work)
Ok, so what are the arguments for exim over qmail (at least why do you
prefer it?)
I've heard arguments for qmail and exim over sendmail.
--
Rob
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the
On 15 Jun 1997, Rob Browning wrote:
Alexander Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(I'd vote for exim if uucp is guaranteed to work)
Ok, so what are the arguments for exim over qmail (at least why do you
prefer it?)
I've heard arguments for qmail and exim over sendmail.
qmail is supposed
Tim Cutts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
I am, for example,
irritated that qmail's forwarding file is called .qmail. What was the
point of that? Does changing the name from .forward to .qmail really
improve security?
[snip]
qmail does not understand anything but
the most simple
Tim Cutts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
qmail is supposed to be more secure. Theoretically, exim's design
allegedly means there might be some security issues, but none have
been found yet. There has been argument about this ad nauseam on
the exim-users mailing list.
qmail also has stronger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Alan Dorman) wrote on 15.06.97 in [EMAIL
PROTECTED]:
My two personal reservations:
1) I think Daniel J. Bernstein (qmail's author) doesn't seem to know
how to have a technical discussion without seeming as if he's tacking
an implicit you stupid idiot on to the
Does anyone know of any document comparing comparing sendmail, exim,
and qmail. The recent discussions and some upcoming installs here
have made me start contemplating the issue again.
I've poked around, but came up with nothing. I did see some bits in
the Qmail+MH mini howto, claiming all its
Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does anyone know of any document comparing comparing sendmail, exim,
and qmail. The recent discussions and some upcoming installs here
have made me start contemplating the issue again.
I don't think there's a FAQ, and I don't think it could be objective
19 matches
Mail list logo
