From owner-freebsd-isp  Mon Sep  8 08:28:11 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-isp>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA06943
          for isp-outgoing; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 08:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from super-g.inch.com (super-g.com [207.240.140.161])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA06938
          for <freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 08:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (spork@localhost)
	by super-g.inch.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA13144;
	Mon, 8 Sep 1997 11:37:55 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 11:37:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: spork <spork@super-g.com>
X-Sender: spork@super-g.inch.com
To: Nicholas Merrill <nick@calyx.net>
cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: qmail v. sendmail
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970908093731.03659340@calyx.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970908113540.13137A-100000@super-g.inch.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

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
> 
> 
>