Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 21:45:47 -0500 From: Stuart Krivis <ipswitch@apk.net> To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: qmail (Was: Maintaining Access Control Lists ) Message-ID: <nuv4auodvqdjhmsak77hah18lp615k9e4e@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <p05101509b8c47b17d088@[10.0.1.8]> References: <F61GQUEYvZmDvHbYxPo0000a6bd@hotmail.com><20020323002608.B20699@ra in.macguire.net><3C9C84CF.2090300@flash.net><20020323084327.A354@r ain.macguire.net><3C9DF87D.5050306@cream.org> <p05101505b8c430e28572@[10.0.1.9]> <000c01c1d3ab$6d2c6960$6600a8c0@penguin> <p05101509b8c47b17d088@[10.0.1.8]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 08:11:42 +0100, Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> wrote: >need that last 1% it doesn't yet do. Moreover, postfix has the=20 >simplest configuration language that I have ever seen for any=20 >program, and the largest set of "sane but secure" defaults -- It is=20 >entirely possible to have a fully functional postfix installation=20 >where the entire configuration file is just two lines long. Agreed. >> beginning to start up a webhosting service with virtual domain = hosting with >> full e-mail services and qmail was frankly the only package out there= with >> the commitment and features that seemed close to my liking. I was = also >> looking at the other tools out there that I could slap on top of = qmail to >> make it more functional (vpopmail, sqwebmail, etc). > > Granted, there are a number of add-on features that have been=20 >created for qmail. I believe that it is possible to duplicate those=20 There are a lot of tempting add-ons, but when you start looking at them you find that it becomes a nightmare. 95 different patches from different places and who knows when one patch will break another one and where the fingers get pointed in blame. Some of the add-on authors also have strange ideas about how to do things. (Courier is pretty weird, for example.) > > However, this is the real power of the Unix "toolbox" philosophy=20 >-- you can put the tools together that you want, in most any way you=20 >want, making the result do just about whatever you want.=20 >Unfortunately, Dan breaks this philosophy by tightly integrating all=20 >his tools together, and making it so that they are all=20 >interdependent. For example, you can't use the standard inetd that=20 I seem to remember running qmail behind inetd a few years back. I don't remember how well it worked or what was needed to get it to work though. > If qmail does everything you need and does it in a way that you=20 >can comprehend, then you would be pretty foolish to just throw all=20 >that away because of personality issues with the author. I decided to play with qmail and djbdns on one box, although I run postfix on my other machines. They're small and lightweight, and (once you figure out the method behind the madness) they're pretty easy to configure and maintain. Tcpserver is arguably less complex than inetd and tcpwrappers. Other people don't like inetd as evidenced by replacements for it. Supervise has some interesting features. That whole /package thing is pretty bizarre though. I think Dan wasn't taking his medicine when he cooked that one up. What do we run on our production boxes? Sendmail and BIND, tcpwrappers and inetd. :-) <shrug> Use what works well for you and move on to the next task. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?nuv4auodvqdjhmsak77hah18lp615k9e4e>