Everyone seems to think Qcontrol or VQadmin are the only ways to get domains into QMT. I personally use webmin. In the command line section I have the history of commands run and I queue up a past domain add, modify it for the new domain and kick it off.
Qcontrol does a LOT more than create domains. Do you have a tool to read log files? Modify control files? Look at the Queue? Check and modify Spamassasin? and a LOT more... I feel like an infomercial... BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!! It whitens and brightens... Come on people. > i tend to agree with Adam. if you require a pay tool for a free package > it > will hurt. i do not use QControl because the free version is only for one > domain. for my part i did just buy the CentQMT5 download, and may well > pony > up the cash for the QControl i would need. but i still think needing a > pay > admin software is going to hurt overall (although i have been using > command > line since i started using qmail toaster). the more users we have, the > better it gets (although one could argue the other side of that as well!). > > Helmut > > _____ > > From: Jean-Paul van de Plasse [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:03 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [qmailtoaster] Creating e-mail users with VQAdmin vs. > Qmailadmin > > > Hi, > > If some people would make a list of the most important bugs in qmailadmin > I > am sure they can be fixed.. > I never use vqadmin, so I have no clue about what works or not, but I am > capable of fixing it. > > JP > > On 19 mei 2009, at 19:56, Adam Glass wrote: > > > Hi all, > > Although I am new to this list, I have been running a Linux user group for > over a decade, and have done software development that dealt with Open > Source. Perhaps another perspective could be useful. > > It is sad but true that nobody wants to pay for software. No matter how > much we understand the amount of hard work that goes into it, businesses > won't pay for it. If there are two ways to get something done and one of > them is free, most businesses will choose the free route. > > I suspect that the number of Qmail Toaster users would drop dramatically > if > you had to either pay for a tool to create multiple virtual domains, or > had > to use the CLI to do it. > > Some really good - and good looking - documentation on creating virtual > domains via CLI might help retain some users who would otherwise go > elsewhere, but probably not many. > > I have worked at a software development company that tried to take the > middle ground, charging for add-ons while donating to the core project > (anybody remember Metro-X?). But in the end it was not commercially > viable. > > Sorry to be negative about this, but it's what I have seen and > experienced. > Right now you have a graphical tool that mostly works, even if it does > have > bugs. It is free which means Qmail Toaster is free, so you have a large > user community that advocates for you (which is how I learned about this > project). > > The problems that come from vqadmin's bugs may be easier to live with than > the effects of charging for improved software. > > > --Adam > > > > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Phil Leinhauser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I would normally agree with you Steve but this is a bit different. > > For the home users with one domain, QControl is free. For anyone running > more than one domain we are most likely running commercially. QMT and > MOST > of the accessories are free and the service in this forum is better than > most paid support systems from the big guys like IBM, Dell, MS.... > Throwing > Jake a few bucks for his tool is money WELL spent. These guys are always > on > top of anything and they spend considerable time with updates, patches, > etc. > for NOTHING! I say throw him the business. > > VQadmin is BROKE. That fact is noted in several places yet users still > stumble upon it and cause traffic in here. > > Phil > > >> >> On May 19, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Eric Shubert wrote: >> >>> Once again, I'd like to recommend that vqadmin be dropped from QMT. >>> The problems it has appear to outweigh the benefits it provides, >>> especially now that qcontrol is available. >>> >>> Does anyone have any objections to this? I think it deserves some >>> discussion. >> >> >> i have no objection per se to dropping vqadmin; however, it seems a >> bit disingenuous to propose QControl as the appropriate replacement, >> given that it's commercial software. a statement such as "vqadmin is >> broken, so we're dropping it; you'll need to use the command-line >> tools to add and delete domains" would, i think, do a better job of >> setting appropriate expectations in the minds of users who don't >> follow this list. >> >> -steve >> >> -- >> If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an >> improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v >> http://five.sentenc.es >> >> > > > >
