On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Jesse Guardiani wrote: > On Thursday 09 September 2004 11:20 am, Paul Theodoropoulos wrote: > > What, precisely, is gained by supporting postfix? i don't see the point. > > Postfix is a MODERN sendmail replacement. Qmail is not. You don't need > to patch Postfix. Patches suck. :)
(in re 'MODERN') I disagree. Despite the age of the original code base, qmail is still a modern and viable replacement for sendmail. However, it's not very featureful -- which is fine for replacing most versions of sendmail anyway. I believe that the majority of sendmail installations do not use STARTTLS or SMTP AUTH. (in re patches) Funny. I've never thought so. One thing I like about having to patch qmail is the ability to decide at compile-time what extensions I want to use. This allows me to limit the amount of unused code compiled into my MTA. (In the era of modern computing and the prevalence of CPU's well over 2GHz, this may not mean a lot. However, I run qmail on a 50MHz SparcStation LX and I'm a bit picky about what goes into it.) Having only ever compiled Postfix once (and many moons ago at that), I do not know if the same option is present there. But I'm wandering off topic for the vpopmail list. Ooh... While we're at it, we could add vpopmail support for sendmail... ^_~ Sincerely, Chris Ess System Administrator / CDTT (Certified Duct Tape Technician)
