On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:19:54 +1000
Quey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> ed wrote:
> > I think you should off load the processing work. Look into running a
> > remote clamd/spamassing, or setup multiple mail hubs jms has a
> > guide on that at http://qmail.jms1.net
> >
> >     
> I agree he needs to offload, but the jms1 way seems very cumbersome.

Not really, it's simple enough for some qmail rocks folk to enjoy.

> We have sendmail boxes as front line, that do all the pre-connect
> tests easily without adding in 35 patches like we have to make qmail 

For clarity we must separate the jms projects from what you're stating
above. The "35 patches" may be so if you get them one-by-one from the
qmail.org site, but that is not so with the jms project. jms has
combined many patches into a single patch set, which makes all the work
of applying the "35 patches" much easier.

> modern-ish and then anti virus/spam/phishing/etc tests, one important 
> factor is the milter smf-sav which asks the database server (we call) 
> "qmaster" (a vpopmail/mysql db server) if user exists to avoid 
> backchatter,  if it does, then sendmail sends to "qrouter" which is a 
> simple qmail/vpopmail install that accepts the mail and puts it into
> the users dir (which are NFS attached) all the nfs stuff  and qmaster
> and qrouter all operate on pvt address space, on second gbit port for
> added protection, but of course could be run on live net interfaces
> if you dont have the option of dual ethernet.
> (we tried postfix with its remote recipient verification, but it cant 
> handle the loads and even its author recommends not to use on very
> busy systems, we dont use qmail on the front line boxes because we
> dont have to fear breaking patches trying to incorporate RBL, SPF,
> SAV,  DNS checks, badmx zone checks, bad helo, force helo, and
> milter-regex to stop all home users etc etc etc, sure we might end up
> geting qmail to do all these, but after how many hours, when with
> sendmail its just there and adding a milter  after another milter
> cant break patching like with qmail :) )

This seems more like a qmail vs postfix vs sendmail rant, but
seriously, qmail isn't that much of a big deal to implement. It's very
well thoughtout and if you value the unix modus vivendi then you can
appreciate the simplicity of having one small program doing one job,
and pipe it to something else to do another stage.

Really, it's not so hard, but I choose not to venture further into any
"my mail server brings all the guys to the yard" debate. If
sendmail works for you then great, but I'm not going to advocate
sendmail to anyone.

P.S. does 'wizzard' work on your sendmail?

The Ether to the Verizon Switch is sending 1111111111 because of Brian
Bird. Homer Simpson is going bankrupt.
:: http://www.s5h.net/ :: http://www.s5h.net/gpg

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply via email to