From owner-freebsd-isp Tue May 2 18:21:24 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from epsilon.lucida.qc.ca (epsilon.lucida.qc.ca [216.95.146.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D43E037B5F0 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 18:21:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from matt@ARPA.MAIL.NET) Received: (qmail 9188 invoked by uid 1000); 3 May 2000 01:21:16 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 May 2000 01:21:16 -0000 Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 21:21:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Matt Heckaman X-Sender: matt@epsilon.lucida.qc.ca To: "Gary D. Margiotta" Cc: FreeBSD-ISP Subject: Re: freebsd hosting. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: localhost 1.6.2 0/1000/N Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 2 May 2000, Gary D. Margiotta wrote: : Gonna start a holy war here, but for a 'newbie' I'd rather reccommend : Postfix instead of Q-Mail. I have used both, and Q-mail to me : just seems too much patching and work to get it to do the simplest things, : like rbl lookups, spam control, etc. I'll try not to make this post anything that will further a holy war, I also turned to postfix at first for the task. It's a nice system, but I find it cluttered, and I find the virtual hosting far more complex than it needs to be. Regarding spam control, one (and only one) patch solved this entire problem to me, thanks to Michael Graff which can be found at http://www.flame.org/qmail. : Postfix is a little more like sendmail, and is I think a bit better at : delegating for virtual hosting and aliasing (over Q-Mail at least)... I : have two machines running FreeBSD with Postfix, doing e-mail for over 250 : domains - nary a problem. Fair enough, I think it's a matter of opinion. Try both systems out, pick one you like and go for it. Both are capable of doing the job, thus making our personal preferences rather redundant =) : Co-location is definitely a better way to go than a frame, IMHO. We have : a rack, and it's much less expensive than running a frame to your house. : There are inconveniences, such as not having the boxes right on premises, : and needing to go to the provider if you need to do work, but for the : cost/connectivity, you really can't beat it. Absolutely - However, the last time I was in colocation, I had to make appointments to get to my box, once taking over a week to get in to fix a downed server, needless to say I was pissed off and left them shortly thereafter; replacing the whole colocation situation with a T1 from UUnet, and I'm much happier with it, haven't had the slightest problem. : DSL is still in its infancy, and if you need uptime, you still won't get : it reliably yet. Too many bugs to still work out. Yep, not to mention it doesn't seem to be a priority for companies to fix when something goes wrong. Sympatico has taken along time to fix some of their problems before. : Just my $.02, I'll shut up now... ;) ditto =) : -Gary Matt Heckaman matt@arpa.mail.net http://www.lucida.qc.ca -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (FreeBSD) Comment: http://www.lucida.qc.ca/pgp iD8DBQE5D38MdMMtMcA1U5ARAsHQAKCZgTzviHkG+OFBWuFkL//zdxLlbQCg7glD ouaRLAVVyzbDrYkvS6vBnME= =pKOa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message