Re: qmail or postfix? (was: RE: What is the best mailling list manager for qmail and Domain Tech. Control ?)
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 03:29:04PM +0100, Thomas GOIRAND wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Craig Sanders" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 09:34:52PM +0100, Bj?rnar Bj?rgum Larsen wrote:
> > 4. the configuration is truly bizarre. bernstein has his own
> > non-standard directory structures, and a liking for many little files.
> > many of these files are 'magical' - the contents are irrelevant, mere
> > existence of them alters behaviour of the program, and even causes programs
> > to be run automagically.
> > this makes it impossible to experiment by temporarily commenting out
> > particular lines - you have to delete a file, and then hope you can
> > remember what it was called if you need to re-enable that feature.
> I deseagree on that. I've found qmail's config file a lot more efficient than
> one stupid unic file,
fine. you have every right to be wrong.
> Can someone write here an easy understandable configuration for
> Postfix with virtual domains ? After some call for help here, none of
> you that know Posfix did it...
sorry, but it's not our problem if YOU can't understand clear and simple
instructions or concepts.
virtual domains are a well-documented part of postfix, and have been for years.
> > 5. bernstein likes to reinvent the wheel. he does this (and does it badly)
> > without regard to whether the wheel actually needs to be reinvented or not
> > (e.g. ucspi-tcp).
> > this is compounded by the fact that it is a complete PITA to use any of his
> > programs without using all of his programs.
> I deseagree a lot on that also. Bernstein has coded ucspi-tcp as a
> replacement for the standard tcp program.
the program you are thinking of is called inetd (or xinetd - another version
with resource limitation controls built in).
> He has the rights to do so, and you have the rights not to use it if you like
of course he has the right to do so. that is beyond question.
it was just unneccesary and stupid of him to do so.
more to the point, if he's going to reinvent the wheel he should at least try
to do a good job - a square wheel isn't any use to anyone.
> that focus on staying on unix style,
you couldn't be more wrong on this point.
his programs implement BERNSTEIN-style, not traditional unix style. his
programs are about as different from unix style as it's possible for software
to be and still run on unix systems.