Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 11:37:54 -0400 (EDT) From: spork <spork@super-g.com> To: Nicholas Merrill <nick@calyx.net> Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: qmail v. sendmail Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970908113540.13137A-100000@super-g.inch.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970908093731.03659340@calyx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I've found Qmail to be quite efficient on an old and *very slow* (4M memory) MacIIx running NetBSD... Sendmail brought it to it's knees everytime I sent out mail, qmail seems a bit more compact. If anyone wants, I have step-by-step generic install instructions I put together... Charles On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Nicholas Merrill wrote: > At 07:26 PM 9/7/97 -0700, Michael Dillon wrote: > > >> My question: does anyone out there have any input on qmail? I > >>am considering dumping Sendmail for qmail > > > >Oh my God! Expectations are dropping lower by the minute. Qmail is great > >stuff, in fact I run qmail for our inhouse company mail here, but it is the > >worst mailer to use for a mailing list machine. Try zmailer instead if > >performance is what you want. > > I have been running Qmail on my mailing list server since around May > with no major snags. > > For a list processor I am running ListProc 6.0c by Anastasios Kotsikonas. > > I don't understand why you say that qmail is the worst mailer for use on > a mailing list machine. It works great for us! > > When a message comes in for one of the bigger lists (over 3000 subscribers) > it doesn't choke the machine, and in fact it can still do lots of other > tasks in the background, like serving web pages etc. > > Granted the machine I'm running it on is a Pentium 100mHz, not a 486 but > I don't see why he shouldn't run qmail on his listserver anyway. Could you > back up that statement with some facts Mike? > > Nick > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970908113540.13137A-100000>