exim [was Re: Status of qmail?]
On Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 12:01:07PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
>--On Tue, Jul 14, 1998 5:59 pm -0500 "Rob Browning" <rlb@cs.utexas.edu>
>> David Frey <david@eos.lugs.ch> writes:
>>> I'd prefer exim as our default MTA -- it is easy to configure and
>>> mostly compatible with smail.
>>
>> I thought that last time this was discussed, we had more or less
>> decided to move toward exim, presuming we could satisfy a couple of
>> concerns people had had with particular issues (was it uucp?).
Yes, UUCP is not officially explained in the manuals, but it is
doable as long as one doesn't insist on bang-paths.
My UUCP-configuration with exim works nicely.
>FWIW, I would also put my vote behind exim. I don't understand procmail
>issues (raised in another message on this thread) since I've never used it,
Procmail and exim work together using the classical .forward files.
>but exim has a nice simple filtering interface, and a very powerful
>multi-domain interface.....
David
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: