Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 15:20:57 -0500 From: Paul Procacci <pprocacci@datapipe.com> To: Bob Johnson <fbsdlists@gmail.com> Cc: DAve <dave.list@pixelhammer.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Need to build a new mail server Message-ID: <484061A9.6050201@datapipe.com> In-Reply-To: <54db43990805301309q6345aa6dy78546deda8327293@mail.gmail.com> References: <483EE95F.8000509@studsvik.com> <483FAD90.6010101@extracktor.com> <484013A7.6020507@mikestammer.com> <48401F97.9010003@pixelhammer.com> <54db43990805301309q6345aa6dy78546deda8327293@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bob Johnson wrote: > On 5/30/08, DAve <dave.list@pixelhammer.com> wrote: > >> Eric Zimmerman wrote: >> >>> Foo JH wrote: >>> >>>> I like Qmail. It's not overly difficult to configure, and it's >>>> extensible. >>>> >>>> >>> and requires 400 patches to do basic things =( >>> >> List them, not 100, not 399, all 400 please. >> >> Keep in mind that when your download x.x.x release of a software package >> you are downloading a "patched" source code. Sendmail has been patched >> many times, Postfix is patched, Exim is patched. qmail just requires you >> apply your own patches. Patching is not a bad thing, shrinkwrap mail >> admins applying patches that they do not understand is a bad thing. >> >> >>> heres some interesting reading about qmail... >>> >>> http://www.dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/~ma/qmail-bugs.html >>> >> That so much time and effort is spent telling everyone how bad qmail is >> still amazes me. It is one of the best performing and most extensible >> MTAs I have ever used. It is not however, suitable for those who choose >> not to understand how mail works. Point and clickers should stay with >> Postfix, also a very capable MTA. >> > > > I agree. No one should use Qmail unless they have read and completely > understand every email-related RFC and have at least two years of > experience running a commercial mail server. Amateurs shouldn't even > consider it. > > Please, use anything but Qmail. It sprays backscatter spam all over > the internet. > > - Bob > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > I'd personally vouch for Qmail myself. Having been an administrator now for mail servers in general for nearly 15 years, with experience with most notable mailers, Qmail by far lends itself to be the most highly configurable mailer assuming you know what you want ahead of time. Most experienced sysadmins, once they know what they want, can apply those patches to qmail with ease and roll out additional Qmail installations with a single package. Very easy indeed. However, in an attempt to remain as unbiased as possible (too late I realize) and just to reiterate, Qmail even though I believe it is a wonderful piece of software, you definately need to know what you are doing. Postfix, exim, etc., take a lot of guess work away from the administrator by making assumptions that qmail doesn't make. Some claim that this makes these packages better. For this reason, especially if you aren't familiar with any mailer, I would suggest something other than Qmail. Bob, as for 'backscaatter spam' (assuming I understood you), that's rubbish: http://www.interazioni.it/opensource/chkusr/ (as an example) Cheers! ~Paul
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?484061A9.6050201>