[CentOS] Re: Planning Mail Server (with low resources)

[Rodrigo Barbosa]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 12:17:45AM +0800, Feizhou wrote:
> >Performancewise, I consider (from the tests I ran for Conectiva back in
> >2000) qmail the second fastest non-commercial MTA. The fastests being
> >exim. Commercial solutions like S/MAIL will beat them all to the ground,
> >and S/MAIL is the basis of Exim just like QMail is the basis for Postfix.
> 
> sendmail led to qmail led to postfix
> 
> I am sure exim fits somewhere :D

Actually, exim somes from S/Mail :)

> >Anyway, I think your solution, even tho it does have many merits, will
> >add unneeded complexity to Alain's setup.
> 
> He still needs a virtual backend. Either learn to use someone else's 
> tools or make your own...

If he really opts for a virtual backend, and he doesn't have a problem
with "blackbox" solutions, there are some nice ones based on qmail.
I would never use it, but some people use and like it.

> >>qmail is simple, efficient and has a small footprint (...)
> >
> >I won't argue about efficent and small footprint, specially the
> >later, but simple it isn't.
> 
> Simple it is. There is absolutely NOTHING to do after initial 
> installation and configuration. Oh, you meant the setup? Well, some 
> manage with help, others won't get anywhere without.

I have installed qmail twice. Trying to get any HA system in place
with it was a nightmare.

> >The most simple (as in straightforward) MTA I've seen so far is
> >postfix. And no, I never use it.
> 
> Sorry, I use both and sendmail too and I do not agree. qmail is by far 
> the most simple.

You are entited to your opinion and maybe it really is the most simply
for you. It will depend on many factors.

The more simple things are the things that make sense for us. Things
that work the say we expect them to work, doing so in a way we
find logical.

For me, the most simple MTA is Exim. But I don't repeat that often,
cause I know that is not true for most people. For most people I
ever talked to, postfix is the most simple one.

But I can symptize with you. I (me, myself) find postfix a pain
to configure.

> >>maintenance free and 
> >
> >>comes with the best local delivery system available. 
> >
> ><flamewar invitation>
> >Procmail ? Sure it does. But so does every other MTA :)
> ></flamewar>
> 
> AH, we have a slight misunderstanding here. procmail don't handle 
> .forward files I believe. procmail is a filtering program. Its 
> competitor/comparison would be maildrop for which I'd vouch for given 
> procmail's cpu hogging properties.
> 
>  .forward simply does not match .qmail

Oh. .forward has nothing to do with "local delivery". You are correct
in comparing procmail with maildrop. Those are the one we can classify
as "local delivery system".

But yes, if you are comparing ".forward" with ".qmail", you are correct.
Myself, I like ".procmailrc" better :) Or .exim_filter, which can be
configured, but I really don't recomend. Exim filters are so "powerful"
that I tend to consider them more of a security problem than a feature.
I'm just happy they are not enabled by default, and even take a little
doing to get running.

> >>postfix on the other hand has plenty of features or essential items 
> >>builtin, is not too hard to configure and also has a very convenient way 
> >>of handling the queue.
> >
> >We agree on more than we disagree.
> >
> >Postfix is all that. It is not the best solution, but it is the
> >one I recomend for non-experienced MTA admins.
> 
> Hear hear.
> 
> >>Both come from security experts and those self-same men have got into 
> >>the mta side of things. Why not put them together? The irony of course 
> >>is that both men probably hate each other to bits.
> >
> >Hating DJB is more common than not :)
> 
> Haha

I'm pretty sure if he knew me, he would hate me too. I'm very easy to
hate, as I trust you already found out :)

> >>Just telling postfix to send all incoming mails to the qmail queue 
> >>should not be complex. Then you can manage the two on their own.
> >
> >Despite the merits of qmail or the configuration you are proposing,
> >I don't think it is the best solution for this particular user
> >on this particular environment.
> 
> Well he is better off not doing a system account = email account 
> management system in my opinion.

I agree with you. "system account = email account" is only good for
very small systems (up to 20 mailboxes or so). 

- -- 
Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob at suespammers.org>
"Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur"
"Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDlb/jpdyWzQ5b5ckRAvTiAKCQ3ARkYgvSqt5uNiEUy5ePVzvDLgCfbtbL
ywa9IlEGOheiL+2V94kmuVM=
=J07q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----