[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: MTA Suggestion



On 09-Nov-97 Craig Sanders wrote:
> 
> but the biggest problem with qmail is the author's attitude. it would
> be fine if he said "here's the way i like things to run, so that's the
> default...but if you prefer the old standard ways then make this change
> and that change and everything will run sweetly". but he doesn't do
> that, he says "the old ways suck so you can't have them. you have to do
> it my way even if my way sucks for your particular setup. tough luck".

I agree with this.  qmail seems to be oriented toward efficient transmission of
mail out to the internet, fine, but that is only HALF of the picture.  In
today's environment you need to do more.  My users hate spam. Dealing with spam
complaints is the majority of mail system administration for me. Exim has some
very interesting methods of sender rejection, system-wide message filtering and
finally user-specific message filtering built into it. Exim provides the user
with a more comfortable email environment with minimum administrative headache
for me. 

Philip Hazel, author of Exim, has promised a release of Exim that works with
Paul Vixie's MDL before Christmas and stated that this is already in use in
testing. This, combined with the already extensive array of relay policy and
sender rejection criteria possible plus the filtering make Exim my choice for a
total mail administration solution.  All I need to do now is make a web-based
front-end for users to create their own filters, auto-responders, and
forwarding and I am free from a large amount of mail admin.

Qmail might be my choice for a stand-alone mailing list server but that would
be about it. It is very efficient at bulk sending of email but that is only a
small part of the total email picture. Some of us have to deal with users.





--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .


Reply to: