From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 18 08:34:55 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 646C316A41C for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:34:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2001943D48 for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:34:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59FA160F3; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:34:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from xps.des.no (des.no [80.203.228.37]) by tim.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE57060F2; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:34:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: by xps.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id C159633C23; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:34:45 +0200 (CEST) To: Luciano Musacchio References: <200506180001.58732.l0kit0@exactas.org> From: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:34:45 +0200 In-Reply-To: <200506180001.58732.l0kit0@exactas.org> (Luciano Musacchio's message of "Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:01:58 +0000") Message-ID: <86wtosf4gq.fsf@xps.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Learn: ham X-Spam-Score: -5.2/5.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on tim.des.no Cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: postfix or qmail? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:34:55 -0000 Luciano Musacchio writes: > I've a simple question, postfix or qmail? :) Stay away from qmail. It has a number of serious problems including non-compliance with Internet standards, poor scalability and poor bounce processing model (the latter makes it ideal as a spam relay / amplifier, especially for email-borne viruses) Do you really want to trust your email to a piece of software that hasn't been updated in seven years, and is distributed under a license that explicitly forbids fixing its many flaws? > Other thing (perhaps, the one that I interest more your opinion), do > anyone know why MacOS X Server is using postfix instead of qmail? (i > mean, the latter is far more popular, right?) I doubt it. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no