Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 11:11:47AM -0500, Chris Mauritz 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.
>>>
>>>
>>Actually, postfix was written from scratch by Wietse Venema (developer
>>of TCP Wrappers) and has nothing at all to do with Qmail. As a matter
>>of fact, Dan and Wietse don't seem to enjoy good relations (Dan is a
>>pain in the ass to deal with if you ask me). I wouldn't recommend qmail
>>to anyone, and certainly not a beginner. Postfix comes with CentOS and
>>will be a lot easier to integrate and maintain.
>>
>>
>
>You are both right and wrong.
>
>Qmail is the basis of postfix, as I said, but Qmail source is not
>used on Postfix, the same way S/Mail source is not used on exim.
>
>The main reason Wietse started working on Postfix was because there
>were lots of important features (I agree with him) that DJB would
>not accept on qmail, not to mention licensing problems. Wietse used
>to develop qmail patches before starting postfix.
>
>So yes, you are right, Postfix was developed from scratch. But you
>are wrong when you say qmail was not the basis for postfix.
>
>
I suspect Wietse would take issue with your definition of "comes from."
That's like saying "Mr. X started out writing device driver patches for
the linux kernel...so any subsequent software he writes must come from
Linux." Postfix is VERY different than qmail. My biggest problem with
qmail, other than djb's bad attitude is that you're forced to install a
lot of other utilities to make it work. Also, if you want to keep your
CentOS system updated with a simple "yum update" that's not going to be
an option for you if you want to use non-standard tools like qmail.
Cheers,
