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

Re: Setting up SMTP and POP servers - QMail or what?

Appreciate your difficulties and questions, I'm working on similar problems
getting unix style email working after years with Eudora on Windows.

At 06:31 AM 11/20/00, you wrote:
>Up till now I've shyed away from implmenting mail on my Linux boxes,
>it seems so complicated and my nice friendly (!) Windows POP3 clients
>seem generally far easier to use.


>However, I've now gone back to an ISP (Demon) which tries to deliver
>mail using SMTP, the only ISP I've ever had where this is an option.
>It therefore seems time for me to get to grips with this-here Linux
>mail stuff.

I *think* all internet mail is delivered this way.

>I still need to retain POP3 client access to other mailboxes, so at
>present I'm thinking that from the vast array of MTAs, MUAs (etc.
>etc.) these seem to fit the bill for me:
>1) QMAIL - 'cos it's also a POP server, meaning I can revert to my
>Windows clients if I fail to find a Linux one I likt.

Do you really want to run a POP server? I.e., is your machine on all the
time, and do you want to receive incoming mail for other people and let
them pick it up from your machine? Probably not. Why not stick with exim,
using eximconfig option 2 "smarthost" to send mail via your ISP's machine.

>2) FETCHMAIL - to get my mail from other ISPs.


>As far as I can see QMAIL will receive my Demon mail via SMTP and
>FETCHMAIL can go off to my other ISPs and get the mail there and wack
>it into QMAIL, so I have all my mail ready for reading via POP.

You would be using Qmail to *send* mail from your machine, fetchmail to
*pick up* incoming mail from your ISPs.

>Will this work like I think it will?  Will QMAIL act as an SMTP server
>to deliver mail I send out, meaning I won't have to use an ISP's SMTP

Think you're confused here, see above.

>Sorry if this are naive questions, but even after reading a _lot_ of
>HOWTOs, READMEs etc. I find the whole area of Linux mail systems
>pretty much impenetrable :)

I hear you! Good luck!

Reply to: