On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 10:54:02AM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 10:12, Jim Perrin wrote: > > > i will probably be using the www.qmailrocks.org system again yet i am > > > interested in what others have done and are doing please... > > > > Ugh.. qmail. I'll refrain from spitting up too much hate about the DJB > > way of doing things here and just say "it's a functional product, but > > his way is not the right way" > > Yes, it is so far wrong and has licensing that prevents others from > fixing it that there is a project to completely replace the front > end component: http://smtpd.develooper.com/. Hmmm, that's not quite how it happened. qpsmtpd was written by people who _like_ qmail but wanted to be able to do some funky things at smtp time that were never going to work shoehorned into qmail-smtpd. But I second the recommendation. > I'm not sure why anyone would replace the perfectly functional > sendmail/postfix components of Centos with qmail, but if they > did it would be a good idea to check out qpsmptpd. It can also > be used as a front-end to postfix to give some of the > functionality that you get with sendmail milters like MimeDefang. qpsmtpd also has a vanilla smtp-forward mode so you use it in front of any standard mta. The nice thing qpsmtpd brings to the table (as opposed to things like amavisd, MailScanner, etc.) is the ability to identify and refuse spam at smtp time, often even before the mail data itself has been received, which translates to much lower load. Why accept spam at all to just bounce later? Cheers, Gavin