Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 12:17:45AM +0800, Feizhou wrote:
>
>>>Performancewise, I consider (from the tests I ran for Conectiva back in
>>>2000) qmail the second fastest non-commercial MTA. The fastests being
>>>exim. Commercial solutions like S/MAIL will beat them all to the ground,
>>>and S/MAIL is the basis of Exim just like QMail is the basis for Postfix.
>>
>>sendmail led to qmail led to postfix
>>
>>I am sure exim fits somewhere :D
>
>
> Actually, exim somes from S/Mail :)
From smail's page: Smail-3 was written as a Sendmail replacement for
'normal' people
normal was italized. I remembered there was a connection some where :D
>
>
>>>Anyway, I think your solution, even tho it does have many merits, will
>>>add unneeded complexity to Alain's setup.
>>
>>He still needs a virtual backend. Either learn to use someone else's
>>tools or make your own...
>
>
> If he really opts for a virtual backend, and he doesn't have a problem
> with "blackbox" solutions, there are some nice ones based on qmail.
> I would never use it, but some people use and like it.
Well, it probably just that I have not seen one for postfix yet, not
that i looked....
>
>
>>>>qmail is simple, efficient and has a small footprint (...)
>>>
>>>I won't argue about efficent and small footprint, specially the
>>>later, but simple it isn't.
>>
>>Simple it is. There is absolutely NOTHING to do after initial
>>installation and configuration. Oh, you meant the setup? Well, some
>>manage with help, others won't get anywhere without.
>
>
> I have installed qmail twice. Trying to get any HA system in place
> with it was a nightmare.
HA? No way with any other MTA unless you have some form of centralized
delivery information for the mta to a SAN/FC/NFS (ack!)/some form of
shared storage.
>
>
>>>The most simple (as in straightforward) MTA I've seen so far is
>>>postfix. And no, I never use it.
>>
>>Sorry, I use both and sendmail too and I do not agree. qmail is by far
>>the most simple.
>
>
> You are entited to your opinion and maybe it really is the most simply
> for you. It will depend on many factors.
>
> The more simple things are the things that make sense for us. Things
> that work the say we expect them to work, doing so in a way we
> find logical.
>
> For me, the most simple MTA is Exim. But I don't repeat that often,
> cause I know that is not true for most people. For most people I
> ever talked to, postfix is the most simple one.
>
> But I can symptize with you. I (me, myself) find postfix a pain
> to configure.
I don't find postfix a pain to configure...besides Devdas and one of my
managers, there is no other postfix guy where i work. We do have an exim
guy :D. postfix requires more reading to maintain and configure. It gets
an unfair advantage by being preinstalled and preconfigured for system
account delivery and thereby making it appear simple.
>
>
>>>>maintenance free and
>>>
>>>>comes with the best local delivery system available.
>>>
>>><flamewar invitation>
>>>Procmail ? Sure it does. But so does every other MTA :)
>>></flamewar>
>>
>>AH, we have a slight misunderstanding here. procmail don't handle
>>.forward files I believe. procmail is a filtering program. Its
>>competitor/comparison would be maildrop for which I'd vouch for given
>>procmail's cpu hogging properties.
>>
>> .forward simply does not match .qmail
>
>
> Oh. .forward has nothing to do with "local delivery". You are correct
> in comparing procmail with maildrop. Those are the one we can classify
> as "local delivery system".
how can you say that? .forward provides delivery instructions for
locally delivered mails so how come you say that it has nothing to do
with "local delivery"?
>
> But yes, if you are comparing ".forward" with ".qmail", you are correct.
> Myself, I like ".procmailrc" better :) Or .exim_filter, which can be
> configured, but I really don't recomend. Exim filters are so "powerful"
> that I tend to consider them more of a security problem than a feature.
> I'm just happy they are not enabled by default, and even take a little
> doing to get running.
So exim has its own filtering agent too? I must look at exim one day.
Hmm...probably time to take this offlist if we continue :P
