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

Re: exim/postfix comparisons

On Friday 28 March 2008 01:00:23 pm Nate Duehr wrote:
> koffiejunkie wrote:
> > Nate Duehr wrote:
> >> Qmail is fast, and can handle an incredible amount of mail thrown at it,
> >
> > I have heard and read that claim so many times but, after years of
> > having to admin qmail servers, have yet to seen it handle huge amounts
> > of mail with even half the grace that Postfix does.
> I have no experience with postfix on massive amounts of mail.
> I do believe you, however... since HP is using postfix internally quite
> heavily, from what I've heard.  (I don't work there.)
> The postfix machines I've run are much smaller than the qmail box(es)
> were and less important.
> I'm lazy and my home server is still running exim, because I've been
> running it since exim3 days on Debian... and I haven't felt like
> rebuilding it to postfix.  But if the hardware ever finally keels over
> dead, it'll be rebuilt as postfix/courier.
> > I regularly
> > encounter servers that had been compromised (usually via php or a weak
> > smtp password) and used for sending out massess of spam.  100,000
> > undeliverable mails in the queue and qmail just about stops functioning.
> That's odd.  Someone who would go through the time/effort to set up
> qmail didn't secure their box?  Weird.
> Never seen a queue quite that high, but I would assume the box would get
> both CPU and I/O bound for most values of "box".  (GRIN)
> >> Add in that even if it's "Public Domain", the author never wnated to
> >> work with the community to make it better... he just washed his hands
> >> of it
> >
> > You're letting him off lightly.  He still maintains it is perfect,
> > doesn't need any of the new features, and is 100% secure.  Forgive me
> > for thinking doesn't have to deal with any real busy production servers.
> Yeah, I was being diplomatic.  Qmail's author is out of touch with large
> mail server admin reality so far that I figured it went without
> saying... anyone who really looks into it will find the same things
> you've just added above.

Look at his other daemons, and you'll start to see that DJB is just out of 
touch with reality.  His FTP daemon is so gratuitously different that most 
FTP clients can't deal with it properly, for example.

Paul Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: