Re: qmail or postfix? (was: RE: What is the best mailling list manager for qmail and Domain Tech. Control ?)
> http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/postfix.html
says at the very bottom:
Postfix is only available in source form,
not as precompiled or prepackaged binaries.
There is a list of FTP sites that hold the
source tarball on the official web site.
I have apt-get install'd postfix so I suspect this is not true. If this is
an error, there may be others.
The biggest complaint I've heard about qmail is that its license requires
you to install binaries according to the taste of the creator. This means
that things are the same on Debian solaris and redhat but also makes it
less "standard" if all you use is one distribution.
############
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Bjørnar Bjørgum Larsen wrote:
> I am in the process of choosing between postfix and qmail for our mail
> relays. I've not decided yet. However, I am surprised by the fact that
> many people who prefer postfix, also enjoy posting unqualified[0]
> statements[1][2][3] about qmail.
>
> If anyone have properly grounded views, please share!
>
> For example, I'd like comments on
> http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/postfix.html
> and
> http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/qmail.html
>
>
>
> [0] A _qualified_ statement would e.g. be "qmail is trivially DoS'ed by sending emails with no subject at a rate of 2 per second". Typical unqualified statements are shown below.
>
> [1] Michael Loftis wrote (about qmail):
> > First is, unless they've made design changes,
> > it's trivial to DoS.
>
> Really? How would you DoS qmail? Could the same attack be used to DoS postfix?
>
> [2] Michael Loftis also wrote (about qmail):
> > Second, it doesn't scale so well, but unless
> > you're talking upwards of about 3-5k/msgs/hr
> > you might not run into it.
>
> Really? Quoting Bernstein quoting Bill Weinman (cr.yp.to/qmail/users.html):
> "Our busiest list is about 250 messages X 1800 subscribers
> (avg mail deliveries: 450,000 transactions per day). Sendmail
> was barfing badly on this, and qmail seems to be doing real
> well. The machine is a Pentium 90 running Linux 2.0.13 with
> 64Mb of RAM. I have the spawn limit set at 100. I am *very*
> impressed."
>
> How was the qmail that didn't scale well configured? On what hardware?
>
> [3] Craig Sanders wrote:
> > ps: qmail is a bad idea. postfix is better.
>
> Your conclusion may be right, but the arguments are missing. Would you please share?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> :) Bjornar
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: