Re: Sendmail or Qmail ? ..
Since '98 ...good for you.
All the patches in the world don't help some folks anyway.Qmail has many
ways to skin a cat.
In the end, it's pick a horse and ride it. Exim, Postfix, Sendmail and
qmail all have querks. Like the Mutt homepage, "All mail clients suck.
This one just sucks less." -me, circa 1995
I know of several "big" mail servers running qmail and the sys admins
don't have the same viewpoint that you do. That doesn't make you wrong
or them wrong though.
On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 08:19, Cameron L. Spitzer wrote:
> I've been running Qmail since '98. It's got a bottleneck
> in disk writes, but aside from that it's fast.
> (Anybody tried running the queue in a ramdisk?
> Howabout in an fs made in a file mounted looback?)
> It's secure and reliable.
> Unfortunately, it's not being maintained by its
> author. If you want the functionality of a modern MTA,
> you need to wade through a disorganized and unverifiable
> swamp of contributed patches and add-ons.
> I'm sure most of the add-ons are great, if you can figure
> out where to get them and how to use them. But the ones I've
> tried (mjinject and a couple of SMTP AUTH's) were broken, and
> unsupported by *their* authors. I'm not going to ask
> hundreds of users to rely on a cobbled-together mess like that.
> Apologies and respects to Dave Sill.
> So I've given up on Qmail. I'm using Exim for small systems,
> and I'll try Postfix for my next big one.
> Ps. I read debian-isp at Newsguy. The "From:" address here is
> /dev/nulled. My address can be found at http://greens.org/~cls