Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 11:39:03 -0400 From: DAve <dave.list@pixelhammer.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Need to build a new mail server Message-ID: <48401F97.9010003@pixelhammer.com> In-Reply-To: <484013A7.6020507@mikestammer.com> References: <483EE95F.8000509@studsvik.com> <483FAD90.6010101@extracktor.com> <484013A7.6020507@mikestammer.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eric Zimmerman wrote: > Foo JH wrote: >> I like Qmail. It's not overly difficult to configure, and it's >> extensible. >> > > and requires 400 patches to do basic things =( List them, not 100, not 399, all 400 please. Keep in mind that when your download x.x.x release of a software package you are downloading a "patched" source code. Sendmail has been patched many times, Postfix is patched, Exim is patched. qmail just requires you apply your own patches. Patching is not a bad thing, shrinkwrap mail admins applying patches that they do not understand is a bad thing. > > heres some interesting reading about qmail... > > http://www.dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/~ma/qmail-bugs.html That so much time and effort is spent telling everyone how bad qmail is still amazes me. It is one of the best performing and most extensible MTAs I have ever used. It is not however, suitable for those who choose not to understand how mail works. Point and clickers should stay with Postfix, also a very capable MTA. DAve -- In 50 years, our descendants will look back on the early years of the internet, and much like we now look back on men with rockets on their back and feathers glued to their arms, marvel that we had the intelligence to wipe the drool from our chins.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48401F97.9010003>