On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 17:23, Elliot Foster wrote: > Speaking for myself, the reason why I am irritated with your > continuation of this thread is that the crux of your argument (as I > understand it) is: > > > Why are you using qpsmtpd with qmail/postfix? I find them complex and > > insufficient for my needs.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything of the sort. I said it was less mature, in the sense that it needs additional development. > You can do the same thing with sendmail > > and mimedefang. Yes, I did say that in case people here were not aware of it, and from the responses I don't think everyone was. > Sendmail is better and simpler. What you are doing > > is a waste of time and you should do what I want you to do. I will > > now continue to discuss something that does not have relevance to your > > project (sendmail vs. qmail) I'm quite sure I didn't say any of that. > Did you mean something else? Yes, what I tried to say was that mimedefang does much of the same things that qpsmtpd needs to do, and mostly in perl, and there might be a way to use some or all of it. Also, that the mimedefang mail list would be a valuable resource for the discussions of how different approaches have worked out in practice. > All you seem to be doing is arguing senndmail vs. qmail. I thought I was responding to misconceptions about sendmail. I think everyone knows now that you can write filters in perl so we can leave that topic alone. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
