Re: Sendmail or Qmail ? ..
I repeat the earlier question: Why not exim? I really don't know. I have fallen in love with
it, thought the tools to configure do not exists (Oh my God, I actually have to MANUALLY edit
the config file).
I have a small installation, but intend to grow, and if there will be a problem with exim, I'd
like to change now. I use IMAP which I never tried under sendmail.
So, if the list gets the time, I'd like to know why not exim, with an eye towards changing
(I'm currently building a replacement server, so now would be a good time to change if
necessary).
Rod
> On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 01:43, Rudi Starcevic wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Sorry to bother you all with this repeat question.
>> I've have searched around and seen plenty of opinions but I'd like to
>> ask again and get the latest from this list.
>>
>> Sendmail or Qmail ? That is my question.
>
> Rudi,
> I work at an ISP that used to use Qmail, but now uses Sendmail. There
> are several reasons why the switch was made, none having anything to do
> with the "religion" surrounding either one. The following is my
> opinion, illustrated with some examples from my company.
>
> First, scale is a consideration. Once we began to grow our customer
> base, our email volume began to increase dramatically. Qmail queues
> everything to disk, so the more mail you do, the more pressure you put
> on your disk I/O. The server running Qmail was always blocking while it
> tried to keep up with the disk writes. We had to decide whether to
> spend huge $$$ on a big-iron server to handle it all, or to go cheap and
> modular using some other MTA. We opted for the latter. We replaced our
> single mailserver with four mail routing servers and two mail storage
> servers, where customer accounts reside.
>
> Sendmail uses RAM more heavily than Qmail, relieving some of the disk
> I/O pressure, and improving performance under heavy loads. In order to
> go modular, we needed a directory service to tie it all together (so
> that each mail router can reference a system-wide config, and figure out
> where the mailbox is). We chose OpenLDAP. At the time (1999), Qmail
> did not have LDAP support (correct me if I'm wrong). Sendmail did.
> Even if Qmail did have LDAP support then, Sendmail's source was *much*
> easier to dig through for the performance tuning we did.
>
> Sendmail's milter plug-in system has also been invaluable when we
> implemented server-side bayesian spam filtering, and as we work on virus
> scanning.
>
> Today we are very happy with our Sendmail installation. Debian and
> Sendmail play very happily together, and with our modular setup we
> process over 4 million messages a day with over 60,000 mailboxes. Yes,
> Sendmail has had several high-profile vulnerabilities, but with Debian
> and apt, we were able to stay on top of it with little difficulty. I
> can see how Qmail could look attractive to a smaller site with a less
> complex setup, but for us, Sendmail was the way to go.
>
> Regards,
> Eric
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
--
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch' entrate
- Dante
Reply to: