Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 16:44, Elliot Foster wrote:
Yes, you could use sendmail and a milter instead of qpsmtpd, or you
could use a milter with qpsmtpd. What is your point? What
functionality is missing in qpsmtpd to which you're referring?
The one that brought up the issue was listening on multiple
ports for ssl and smtp and perhaps the submission port too,
and then you need starttls.
What John sent out was one way to get it done. There are other ways
where it could be set up so as to not need stunnel. For example, you
could use firewall rules to redirect the port. Improved starttls is in
the .32-rc1 release that was just annouced, and once the event-based
engine from trunk gets further use, it should be (fairly) trivial to add
code to allow it to listen on multiple interfaces/ports.
I would still like to know what your original point was. That John
should/could run sendmail instead of qmail and qpsmtpd?
I would
argue that it would be easy to add anything to qpsmtpd that is missing.
Possible, perhaps but it will be tough to match all the options or
or the speed that sendmail processes things controlled by
its access database.
I would agree with you that sendmail has many more options than qpsmtpd,
but as I said in my previous email, I added LDAP functionality (for
authentication and recipient verification) to qpsmtpd in less than an
hour. I would question how long it took to get the same functionality
into sendmail. Also, sendmail has been around for a little bit longer
(10+ years?) than qpsmtpd, so it's not suprising to see that it has more
features. :)
I also wouldn't use 'speed' and 'sendmail' in the same sentence,
either. Maybe you're referring to the v9 rewrite, or maybe I'm biased. :)
