----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 1:06 AM
Subject: Re: qmail is not a replacement for sendmail
>However a small businessmand hasn't got this sort of amount of time to
>spend and isn't going to regard configuring his E-Mail as recreation
>over the weekend. He is also, maybe, a one or two person business
>that can't afford to hire someone for a day or two to do the job for
>him.
>
>Lots of other (quite complex) software is used by small businesses and
>is quicker/easier to set up than qmail. OK, so quite a bit of it is
>commercial and so part of what your paying for is the slick set-up.
>But there's not much in the way of alternatives to qmail (and they're
>more difficult to configure) so where does the small business go?
The thing is, email servers are *not* something a novice should be setting
up. There aren't any *really* easy ways to set up a (insert secure and/or
functional here) mail server. It's a complex subject, and that's exactly
why larger organizations assign staff to the subject, or simply hire someone
else to do the task. You need someone with expertise in this area, or
you're going to be kicking yourself later. Smaller companies, one would
assume, don't have such a high volume of mail that they need their own
server. And correct me if I'm wrong, but setting up a simple install of
qmail to act as a mere relay is ridiculously easy.
You know, it's funny.. but we recently had a client with an NT box full of
users decide to co-locate with us, and they're running iMail, a horribly
nasty mail server ;) All kidding aside, part of the server's 'slick' setup
(being a commercial server, and all) was to simply not ask questions like
"Do you want this server to be an open relay?" and default to relaying for
the entire world. This just blows me away.
J.
