Rodrigo Barbosa wrote: > -----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 :) From smail's page: Smail-3 was written as a Sendmail replacement for 'normal' people normal was italized. I remembered there was a connection some where :D > > >>>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. Well, it probably just that I have not seen one for postfix yet, not that i looked.... > > >>>>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. HA? No way with any other MTA unless you have some form of centralized delivery information for the mta to a SAN/FC/NFS (ack!)/some form of shared storage. > > >>>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. I don't find postfix a pain to configure...besides Devdas and one of my managers, there is no other postfix guy where i work. We do have an exim guy :D. postfix requires more reading to maintain and configure. It gets an unfair advantage by being preinstalled and preconfigured for system account delivery and thereby making it appear simple. > > >>>>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". how can you say that? .forward provides delivery instructions for locally delivered mails so how come you say that it has nothing to do with "local delivery"? > > 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. So exim has its own filtering agent too? I must look at exim one day. Hmm...probably time to take this offlist if we continue :P