Re: qmail appliance

On Thursday 11 August 2005 17:31, Tom Diehl wrote:
> Not likely. Please keep in mind that qmail has not been
> maintained for a long time. IMO is is long past its expiration
> date. In this day and age you need an mta that is capable of
> rejecting a message before it accepts it, if for instance the
> mailbox does not exist. Qmail accepts all mail then if it cannot
> deliver a message trys to bounce it. Spammers love qmail!! It
> unloads their machines and bandwidth and makes yours work harder.

Well this is a complete load of crock. Qmail is still the most
solid and efficient MTA for many purposes, and is still by far one
of the most popular MTA's in use.

It certainly doesn't "unload their machine or bandwidth" in any way
of looking at it, and even without patches just because a mail is
not rejected before acceptance does not mean that it's ever
delivered OR necessarily bounced. Qmail can be configured many,
many different ways.

Patches exist to add various functionality, but for those wishing to
avoid patching a pure unbroken product, packages like mailfront
exist, which fit in perfectly with the author's philosophy that
small individual pieces should exist to serve very specific
functions, rather than bloating up a single binary with tons of
features that not everyone uses.

Whether you like it or not, qmail is a perfectly valid and
fully-functional MTA. It requires that you know what you're doing.
If you want a single config file, look elsewhere.

Many still use sendmail, which is much more arguably far "past it's
expiration date", as you put it.

Qmail and Dspam can most certainly be used together to create an
appliance. I don't like the appliance approach personally, but
it's certainly possible.

Cheers,

-- 
Casey Allen Shobe | http://casey.shobe.info
cshobe@seattleserver.com | cell 425-443-4653
AIM & Yahoo:  SomeLinuxGuy | ICQ:  1494523
SeattleServer.com, Inc. | http://www.seattleserver.com