courier-imap does not include a MTA, however, courier itself does offer one.
Personally, I run two mail servers, both with identical configs of postfix, courier-imap/pop, amavis (+spamassassin, clamav, f-prot). and mysql backending it all. The end result? I have ~1000 very satisfied users who will happily tell you that spam and mail virii don't worry them at all, speed is excellent, and there is no such thing as downtime. This has been the case for roughly 2 years now. I'd call that a winning combination. Now if only I could find a nice control panel for some resellers instead of my mishmash of home-rolled solutions... *sigh* guess I can't have it all. On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 21:35:39 -0600, Kashani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ben Munat wrote: > > Thanks Kashani. After I sent that, I was told elsewhere that > > courier-imap not only has pop3 and imap ssl, but also does smtp, > > handles virtual domains, has it's own rudimentary webmail, and has > > hooks for spam/av scanning. In other words, it does everything that > > I'm currently using several programs to do. > > > > So, let me revise my question: is anyone using courier for all their > > mail needs? Any problems with doing so? Any reasons why I should > > stick with qmail? My server handles a few dozen email users over > > about eight domains with moderate traffic. > > It's my understanding that courier-imap does not include an mta. If > you > want Courier to handle everything you'll need to remove courier-imap and > emerge courier as that's the full package. I've used courier itself as > an MTA back in 2002, worked fine though the config was a bit scattered > around. > > I myself would recommend against putting all your email eggs in one > basket. I like having Postfix and Courier-imap separate as I know at > least half of mail will be working after an upgrade. :-) Also Postfix > IMO is the more mature MTA, has better 3rd party support, and a ton of > how-tos and documentation. > > kashani
