From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 8 05:14:56 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D8716A4CE for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 05:14:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from persian.com (unknown [64.94.56.9]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F401A43D41 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 05:14:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from DeadZen@DeadZen.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by persian.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D94AC100AD70; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 08:14:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from persian.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (persian.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06749-09; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 08:14:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from DeadZen.com (adsl-068-209-097-235.sip.mia.bellsouth.net [68.209.97.235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by persian.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57D5E100ABFB; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 08:14:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <404C71CB.1050707@DeadZen.com> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 08:14:51 -0500 From: DeadZen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: David Benfell References: <404A8DE3.7040109@cmsrtp.com> <20040307235318.GM67801@wantadilla.lemis.com> <6.0.0.22.2.20040307161035.025db428@66.125.189.29> <20040308004052.GA5647@parts-unknown.org> In-Reply-To: <20040308004052.GA5647@parts-unknown.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by the persian.com scanners MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.1 cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Recommend MTA X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 13:14:56 -0000 Postfix is just as good, faster and free... without the quotes. search daemonnews for some good postfix articles. David Benfell wrote: On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 16:13:31 -0800, Chuck McManis wrote: Actually I'm a bit surprised that things didn't go with Qmail. Not only is it everything Postfix aspires to be, it has a zillion hours of runtime under its belt. Its been at the 1.03 release forever because there hasn't been anything to fix. If I had one complaint it would be to do an integration pass over the various pop3/imap/ssl/etc modifications to create an integrated pop3/mta that could allow for roaming delivery out of the box. First, Qmail is available via the port system. The installation does everything right. It is nice. It is painless. I run it. I wouldn't run anything else. It is what works for me. Some people, however, can't get along with Qmail's configuration. I don't know why. But I can't criticize, since I can't grok Postfix's configuration, let alone Sendmail's. But the main reason distributions don't offer Qmail as part of their standard installation, or even as an option on the installation, is because Dan Bernstein forbids the distribution of binaries or even patched sources. (The port fetches the source and then fetches any patches, separately.) He has his own license, which is not a "free" software license. (Irritating side question: Should this be an FAQ?) Finally, there are now some recommended patches. If you look at Life With Qmail, you'll find that the recommended installation procedure uses netqmail rather than "vanilla" qmail.