rpgoldman at real-time.com writes: > anID10T writes: > > any thoughts about Qmail? or better, Qmail and Red Hat 7.x ? > > > > Maybe remove the sendamil from my red hat and set up Qmail for a > > mail server... and, wasn't there a TCLUG meeting featuring qmail > > some time ago? > > Not to start a religious war, but qmail just seems odd and cranky. > You seem to have to buy into a whole world view with it. Yes, if you're used to sendmail I can imagine it being quite a jolt. I was never used to sendmail, so it wasn't like that for me. > Postfix seems much more in the standard unix world (files go in normal > places, etc.). Yes, being very sendmail-like was part of the goal, as I understand it, when Postfix was developed. (Without the bad parts, of course :-)). > Perhaps a real qmail fan will step up to the plate... I can't claim religious zealot status I'm afraid. I've been running qmail since version 0.75, or some such, though. It works well for me. I *strongly* approve of the small amount of code and the careful partitioning of functions into separate non-trusting pieces; that's your basic good security architecture, after all. Qmail has been there longer, and is considerably less code than Postfix, and therefore probably has fewer bugs and fewer security bugs, but Postfix has a good enough history that this doesn't seem like a huge deal in practice. Qmail is also *very* flexible. In some senses it's a mail server construction kit. People do all sorts of huge things with it, putting their own extra pieces in in particular places. This does mean that there's rarely one "right" way to do anything interesting. It means that you get to choose your particular favorite way to do things instead. Rather like Perl in that regard :-). -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net / New TMDA anti-spam in test John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/ New Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info