Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > maybe they should try courier, it is very similar to qmail On 08.09.06 14:04, Matej Cepl wrote: > I thought mainly about .qmail-* configuration files -- does courier uses > them as well? Courier's .courier may seem to be exactly like Qmail's .qmail, but there are some minor differences. Qmail, as of 1.03, does not implement dynamic delivery instructions. Courier also uses a slightly different set of return codes which are classified as hard errors. Courier's implementation of forwarding differs from Qmail's. According to Qmail's documentation, if any external command terminates in a permanent or temporary failure, the message is not forwarded to any forwarding address in the .qmail file, even to addresses that precede the failed delivery instruction. The message is forwarded only after it is suc- cessfully delivered. Courier forwards messages to addresses immedi- ately. Also, in some cases Qmail resets the return address on the mes- sage to the address of the account being forwarded. To make things more confusing, there is a configuration setting to have Courier read $HOME/.qmail files, instead of $HOME/.courier. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
CaT wrote: > Qmails logging is horrendous. There is no link between logs of > connections and the source and destination of an email. This makes > tracking an IP of a single hit to many destinations a right rotten pain > in the arse if not impossible. Its internal message ids are recycled so > if you have one and wish to see the log entries for it you're mostlikely > going to be SOL. TAI - because we all need more impediments to quickly > dealing with logs. Oh, yes, I forgot the joy that is qmail's logs. I actually got around to writing a quick script that would search the logs for an ID and then look for the next use of that ID, pair them up and then release the ID as usable again in it's searches. If nothing else it gave me a good exercise in Python programming. Maybe that was his ploy all the time, to provide practical real-world scripting exercises? :) > Its queue management sucks bottom. If I want to clear out a queue of > spam I effectively have to shut the service down, keep it down whilst > deleting and bring it back up. Yup, been there, done that. Whole reason the afore mentioned service had dozens of thousands of messages in the queue at all times. It just wasn't worth it to clean the queue out. Gotta give credit where credit is due, qmail rarely had problems with the self-imposed strain but it is clear it was never designed for anything other than pure benchmark speed. > Qmail is a dirty, rotten little whore. Sorry, but I think that is insulting to dirty, rotten little whores the world over. > There's more. I know there's more but I think my mind is blanking it out > and protecting me from it incase I pick up something sharp and pointy. Ooo, how about the fact that it espouses "the unix way" where each job is done by a specialized program, plays up how this provides for interchangeability and yet it is one of the hardest programs to interface with on the planet? I mean let's just take the case of mailing list managers. Majordomo, listman, listar (whatever it's named now) and about a dozen others all work with everything but qmail. There's 1 for qmail, which blows, that works with nothing else. Interoperable by fine feathered fanny! -- Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream? PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do... ---+- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > the most annoying parts are accept-then-bounce behaviour This is a serious flaw, IMHO. I had to deal with a qmail system in a production environment. A few dozen domains hosted on a single box times a few dozen boxes. Because of the mail policies of the administrators as well as qmail's braindead behavior those boxes were constantly trying to send several dozen thousand illegitimate and undeliverable bounces 24/7. Yes, several dozen thousand. One box had 50,000 in the queue. All because there could not be a simple and accurate method to refuse mail at SMTP time that would result in an acceptably low rate of false-positives. -- Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream? PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do... ---+- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 11:04:36PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Thursday 07 September 2006 18:51, Cameron L. Spitzer wrote: > > [This message has also been posted to linux.debian.user.] > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > qmail has the least Debian support, due to uninteresting > > > licensing issues, but has a large user community and excellent > > > documentation (www.lifewithqmail.org, qmail.org). It runs nicely > > > on Debian systems, and is unlikely to require upgrading. > > > > Sorry, no. On anything bigger than your personal mail > > server, Qmail is going to require replacing with a modern MTA. > > There's a reason to not like it other than just djb-damage? Yeah. Qmails logging is horrendous. There is no link between logs of connections and the source and destination of an email. This makes tracking an IP of a single hit to many destinations a right rotten pain in the arse if not impossible. Its internal message ids are recycled so if you have one and wish to see the log entries for it you're mostlikely going to be SOL. TAI - because we all need more impediments to quickly dealing with logs. Its queue management sucks bottom. If I want to clear out a queue of spam I effectively have to shut the service down, keep it down whilst deleting and bring it back up. Expiring message is a possibility but that just generates bounces and so you have to fsck around again to deal with those. Then there's the fun that happens when qmail-smtp accepts the message but qmail-send is not able to deal with it. A nice one for the unsuspecting sucker that is left to wonder why their messages are being accepted but not delivered whilst nothing but connections to qmail are being logged. Qmail is a dirty, rotten little whore. It was designed to accept everything because some poor unsuspecting sucker really needs to know that a message they never sent did not make it to the mailbox of someone they never heard of because it is full (or just not there). There's more. I know there's more but I think my mind is blanking it out and protecting me from it incase I pick up something sharp and pointy. It's the weekend. I've got other days of the week for pain. On a quiet system most of this you can get around or it wont affect you THAT badly. On a busy system you get the joy of pain, or changing so much of qmail into something else that you wind up with something that looks like qmail but no longer is. All in all though, just say no. Save yourself pain and choose Exim, Sendmail or Postfix. Oh and I love how the qmail-pop3 client logs where a connection came from but not what account it attempted to access or any other useful info. Wooo! Go BAYBE. Ye HAW! Ahm. -- "To the extent that we overreact, we proffer the terrorists the greatest tribute." - High Court Judge Michael Kirby -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Friday 08 September 2006 10:06, Matej Cepl wrote: > Andrei Popescu wrote: > > I don't know too much about MTAs, but after your mail I > > find it strange that both my previous and current ISP use qmail. > > It USED to be the best alternative to sendmail (although I am not sure what > is older -- postfix or qmail) and now many huge installations of qmail are > effectively locked-in to qmail, because migration to anything else is > almost impossible given qmail weird design issues. There's always the option of just declaring a flag day and redeliver mail to a sanely configured mail server once built... -- Paul Johnson Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpKwQncCoIOL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Friday 08 September 2006 10:16, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > the most annoying parts are accept-then-bounce behaviour and mail > unbundling (mail to more recipients at the same place will be delivered for > each recipient extra) OK, before I avoided qmail because like everything else DJB, it's gratuitously different and violates KISS. But if he really thinks accept-then-bounce behavior is socially acceptable, then there's a special place in hell for him... -- Paul Johnson Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpmuBoTNx2uj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
Matej Cepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Paul Johnson wrote: >>> Sorry, no. On anything bigger than your personal mail >>> server, Qmail is going to require replacing with a modern MTA. >> >> There's a reason to not like it other than just djb-damage? > > Aside from DJB (which is big reason enough for me), the biggest reason why I > wouldn't touch qmail with ten-feet pole is vendor lock-in. With reasonably > complicated configuration of sendmail/postfix/exim you can switch between > each other with reasonable amount of work. With qmail (in either direction) > you just have to start from scratch. qmail stores its configuration in plain-text files in a few well-documented places and in .qmail files in users' home directories. While other mail systems don't generally recognize the .qmail files, they could be converted to .forward files or entries in /etc/aliases with a very simple shell script. So I don't think it's substantially harder to migrate to or away from qmail than between any other two MTAs. I agree that there are licensing issues with qmail. Scott. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > maybe they should try courier, it is very similar to qmail I thought mainly about .qmail-* configuration files -- does courier uses them as well? Matěj -- 23 Marion St. #3, Cambridge, MA 02141, (617) 876-1259 http://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/, map http://tinyurl.com/r2lfa GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC My point was simply that such tax proposals [for Pigovian taxes compensating for the transaction costs] are the stuff that dreams are made of. In my youth it was said, that what was too silly to be said may be sung. In modern economics it may be put into mathematics. -- Ronald Coase Notes on the Problem of Social Cost -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
Matej Cepl wrote: > Aside from DJB (which is big reason enough for me), the biggest reason why Just to elaborate on this -- I have no problems to believe that DJB is a genius, his IQ may be really enormous, but unfortunately he was hurt by the problem many geniuses are hurt as well -- communication with him requires genius as well. So for example, take a look at "usable by humans" output of his EPLF (http://crackmonkey.org/faq.html#ANSWER23), or try to tell me how to make email alias with dot in the name part (like [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) using his .qmail-* files (here is the manpage http://www.qmail.org/man/man5/dot-qmail.html) -- I am probably an idiot, but it took me three hours and a lot of googling, before I found an answer. And I have to confess, I don't like programs which make me feel like an idiot. Best, Matěj -- 23 Marion St. #3, Cambridge, MA 02141, (617) 876-1259 http://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/, map http://tinyurl.com/r2lfa GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC That distinction is reflected in the apocryphal remark made by a French diplomat to his British counterpart: "This is all very well in practice, but will it work in theory?". -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
> Andrei Popescu wrote: > > I don't know too much about MTAs, but after your mail I > > find it strange that both my previous and current ISP use qmail. On 08.09.06 13:06, Matej Cepl wrote: > It USED to be the best alternative to sendmail (although I am not sure what > is older -- postfix or qmail) I think qmail is older. otherwise qmail would never be the best alternative :) > and now many huge installations of qmail are > effectively locked-in to qmail, because migration to anything else is > almost impossible given qmail weird design issues. maybe they should try courier, it is very similar to qmail -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Enter any 12-digit prime number to continue. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On 07.09.06 23:04, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Thursday 07 September 2006 18:51, Cameron L. Spitzer wrote: > > [This message has also been posted to linux.debian.user.] > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > qmail has the least Debian support, due to uninteresting > > > licensing issues, but has a large user community and excellent > > > documentation (www.lifewithqmail.org, qmail.org). It runs nicely > > > on Debian systems, and is unlikely to require upgrading. > > > > Sorry, no. On anything bigger than your personal mail > > server, Qmail is going to require replacing with a modern MTA. > > There's a reason to not like it other than just djb-damage? googling for "qmail bugs wishlist" might help to make your view. the most annoying parts are accept-then-bounce behaviour and mail unbundling (mail to more recipients at the same place will be delivered for each recipient extra) -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. "Where do you want to go to die?" [Microsoft] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
Andrei Popescu wrote: > I don't know too much about MTAs, but after your mail I > find it strange that both my previous and current ISP use qmail. It USED to be the best alternative to sendmail (although I am not sure what is older -- postfix or qmail) and now many huge installations of qmail are effectively locked-in to qmail, because migration to anything else is almost impossible given qmail weird design issues. Matěj -- 23 Marion St. #3, Cambridge, MA 02141, (617) 876-1259 http://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/, map http://tinyurl.com/r2lfa GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC My point was simply that such tax proposals [for Pigovian taxes compensating for the transaction costs] are the stuff that dreams are made of. In my youth it was said, that what was too silly to be said may be sung. In modern economics it may be put into mathematics. -- Ronald Coase Notes on the Problem of Social Cost -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
Paul Johnson wrote: >> Sorry, no. On anything bigger than your personal mail >> server, Qmail is going to require replacing with a modern MTA. > > There's a reason to not like it other than just djb-damage? Aside from DJB (which is big reason enough for me), the biggest reason why I wouldn't touch qmail with ten-feet pole is vendor lock-in. With reasonably complicated configuration of sendmail/postfix/exim you can switch between each other with reasonable amount of work. With qmail (in either direction) you just have to start from scratch. Binaries in /var/qmail/bin (which is fixed in Debian) are just the tip of the iceberg that DJB wants to do things in other way than the rest of the world. I am affected by qmail on the server my primary domain is hosted (I don't have root password there) and it is really PITA to dance around qmail issues. Just say "No". More thorough (and from much more authoritative source) discussion is on http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=warez#djb Matěj -- 23 Marion St. #3, Cambridge, MA 02141, (617) 876-1259 http://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/, map http://tinyurl.com/r2lfa GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC A GOOD name is rather to be chosen than great riches. -- Proverbs 22:1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
"Cameron L. Spitzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [This message has also been posted to linux.debian.user.] > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > qmail has the least Debian support, due to uninteresting > > licensing issues, but has a large user community and excellent > > documentation (www.lifewithqmail.org, qmail.org). It runs nicely > > on Debian systems, and is unlikely to require upgrading. > > Sorry, no. On anything bigger than your personal mail > server, Qmail is going to require replacing with a modern MTA. I don't know too much about MTAs, but after your mail I find it strange that both my previous and current ISP use qmail. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Thursday 07 September 2006 18:51, Cameron L. Spitzer wrote: > [This message has also been posted to linux.debian.user.] > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > qmail has the least Debian support, due to uninteresting > > licensing issues, but has a large user community and excellent > > documentation (www.lifewithqmail.org, qmail.org). It runs nicely > > on Debian systems, and is unlikely to require upgrading. > > Sorry, no. On anything bigger than your personal mail > server, Qmail is going to require replacing with a modern MTA. There's a reason to not like it other than just djb-damage? -- Paul Johnson Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
[This message has also been posted to linux.debian.user.] In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > qmail has the least Debian support, due to uninteresting > licensing issues, but has a large user community and excellent > documentation (www.lifewithqmail.org, qmail.org). It runs nicely > on Debian systems, and is unlikely to require upgrading. Sorry, no. On anything bigger than your personal mail server, Qmail is going to require replacing with a modern MTA. There's a denial of service bug. When the queue gets too big, qmail-send just spins around deciding what to send next and never gets around to actually sending anything. There's a backscatter bug, due to Qmail's inability to reject at SMTP time stuff it won't be able to deliver. It bounces spam at random victims instead of rejecting it. There's a mailbombing bug. Say you have a mailman list with a thousand subscribers, and 250 of them are Yahoo.com. A modern MTA will connect to Yahoo once, give 250 RCPT TOs, and one DATA. (Or maybe break them up into chunks of a hundred.) Qmail will connect to Yahoo 250 times, amd give one RCPT TO and the same exact DATA. Yahoo will block you for that. All three of these bugs are architectural. You can't fix them without such extensive changes that the result isn't Qmail any more. And there's nobody in charge, taking responsibility for those changes. Pick a patch at random from qmail.org. Chances are it's been abandoned by its author already. Pick any three large patches. Chances are they'll break each other. Qmail's not missing from Debian because of "uninteresting licensing issues," it's missing because it's broken and can't be fixed. I ran Qmail for eight years. Two of those bugs finally forced me to switch to Postfix. Luckily I never ran into the DoS bug. Cameron -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 18:02 +0200, T wrote: > Sorry I misunderstood, and sorry again for the venting. Actually I didn't > quite sure if all my previous steps are necessary. Just that 2 of my found > references both suggested so... No worries. I'm guessing english isn't you native language either Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 23:40:33 +0200, Hans du Plooy wrote: > Again, you only mentioned making your MTA deliver mail to your ISP. The > steps you posted in reply to Steve Lamb's post, tells my yout tried to > setup Postfix not as a client talking to a remote server, but as a server > accepting connections from clients using TLS and SASL auth. The former is > quick to set up, the latter can be quite a nightmare, in part because SASL > is not as "Simple" as the name suggests. > > Please understand that I did not not try to attack or accuse you of > anything. You post made it sound like Postfix was really complex to set > up and that information and help is not available - I merely pointed out > that that is really not the case, and gave you the links for the things > you wanted to - hoping that might send you in the right direction. Sorry I misunderstood, and sorry again for the venting. Actually I didn't quite sure if all my previous steps are necessary. Just that 2 of my found references both suggested so... thanks for clear things up. tong -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 11:52 +0200, T wrote: > Start accusation without even trying to understand what others are trying > to do is not a good way to help. What you said you were trying to was fairly simple - have postfix forward mail to your ISP. You didn't mention authentication before. I simply searched as you said you did and showed you what I found. > > Just because you know sendmail much better than the other MTAs (if you > > don't know how to setup a relayhost in postfix then I take it you don't > > know much else about postfix), doesn't mean sendmail is really easier. > > It's just easier for you. > > Start accusation without even read what I said is even worst. As I said, > I'm just a normal user, not an expert on any MTA at all. You didn't say that. You said "speaking from my heart breaking experiences, is that if you are a normal user" and then "Just yesterday, I noticed my well configured sendmail..Good luck to troubleshoot this with postfix, exim, etc." which made it sound like you know your stuff with Sendmail but are unfamiliar with Postfix. > What I meant is, from an end user point of view, that it is more likely > for me to *find* answers to my problems in sendmail than any other MTAs, > because it is widely used and thoroughly discussed. Fair enough. > >> My suggestion, speaking from my heart breaking experiences, is that if > >> you are a normal user, not a mail expert or system admin who need to > >> play with mail configuration as you full time job, stick with sendmail, > >> and keep away with postfix, exim, etc. > > > > I don't understand your logic. An full time mail admin would easily get > > his head around any MTA, and might opt for sendmail because of it's > > configurability. But an ordinary user who don't know much about how > > mail works? > > yes, go figure out the steps setting up Postfix/SASL/TLS yourself by > reading the man pages, Again, you only mentioned making your MTA deliver mail to your ISP. The steps you posted in reply to Steve Lamb's post, tells my yout tried to setup Postfix not as a client talking to a remote server, but as a server accepting connections from clients using TLS and SASL auth. The former is quick to set up, the latter can be quite a nightmare, in part because SASL is not as "Simple" as the name suggests. Please understand that I did not not try to attack or accuse you of anything. You post made it sound like Postfix was really complex to set up and that information and help is not available - I merely pointed out that that is really not the case, and gave you the links for the things you wanted to - hoping that might send you in the right direction. I am not an expert on any MTA. Work with a variety of MTAs - whatever clients happen to have. More often than not I have to consult the documentation to get the job done. I do find Sendmail to be more tricky simply because things aren't always as obvious as with Postfix and Exim's almost-plain-english config files, but all four certainly have a wealth of information available online, and busy mailing lists that are helpful. Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Saturday 02 September 2006 01:51, John Kelly wrote: > The OP asked for information without religious dogma. And since dogma > is all you have to offer, goodbye. You get what you give. Sorry you can't take what you dish. -- Paul Johnson Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp2rUfu69wlR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Saturday 02 September 2006 02:29, Hans du Plooy wrote: > On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 00:36 +0200, T wrote: > > My suggestion, speaking from my heart breaking experiences, is that if > > you are a normal user, not a mail expert or system admin who need to play > > with mail configuration as you full time job, stick with sendmail, and > > keep away with postfix, exim, etc. > > I don't understand your logic. An full time mail admin would easily get > his head around any MTA, and might opt for sendmail because of it's > configurability. But an ordinary user who don't know much about how > mail works? Even then, why should a full time admin waste days learning sendmail.cf when exim and postfix are practically plug and play by comparison, and takes only minutes to learn? I know I can't answer that, and I've deployed mail servers professionally before. Half an hour dinking with exim versus two days and hoping it's right with sendmail...not a hard choice. I'm sure some sites have a need for the extra configurability of sendmail, though I would estimate the vast majority of sendmail sites aren't doing anything that couldn't be done easier and with less guesswork with an MTA that isn't rococo¹. ¹ http://ursine.ca/rococo -- Paul Johnson Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpGbIhlKZrO9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
Steve Lamb wrote: > Then that is, by definition, not a smarthost, is it? Smarthost = > "handle all my mail, kkthxbye." No, that's nullmailer. Smarthost is "send all my Internet/external/non-local mail to one SMTP server". Matěj -- GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/blog/, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23 Marion St. #3, (617) 876-1259, ICQ 132822213 Besides, the determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language. -- Ed Post, Real Programmers Don't Use Pascal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 11:29:41 +0200, Hans du Plooy wrote: > If you had tried google... > The second hit would have given you the answer... > Also, if you go to www.postfix.org, click on "Documentation" and then > ... > > And lets not forget that when you install postfix on debian it actually > asks you if you want to configure a smarthost, and even if you say no... > > You could have solved this on your own in a minute. Start accusation without even trying to understand what others are trying to do is not a good way to help. > Just because you know sendmail much better than the other MTAs (if you > don't know how to setup a relayhost in postfix then I take it you don't > know much else about postfix), doesn't mean sendmail is really easier. > It's just easier for you. Start accusation without even read what I said is even worst. As I said, I'm just a normal user, not an expert on any MTA at all. Before troubleshooting my yesterday's problem, I don't even know what msp is, when people talking about it, let alone knowing its relation/difference between mta. What I meant is, from an end user point of view, that it is more likely for me to *find* answers to my problems in sendmail than any other MTAs, because it is widely used and thoroughly discussed. >> My suggestion, speaking from my heart breaking experiences, is that if >> you are a normal user, not a mail expert or system admin who need to >> play with mail configuration as you full time job, stick with sendmail, >> and keep away with postfix, exim, etc. > > I don't understand your logic. An full time mail admin would easily get > his head around any MTA, and might opt for sendmail because of it's > configurability. But an ordinary user who don't know much about how > mail works? yes, go figure out the steps setting up Postfix/SASL/TLS yourself by reading the man pages, or coach some John users to do so if you are a postfix expert. Again, from an end user point of view, the MTA that gives me the least headache will be the one that I choose. Unfortunately, I had to go through those headaches myself to know what to choose. This is the whole purpose why I speak up. That's the end of discussion. I'm only giving facts *based on my own experience*. I'm not biased to any MTA and am willing to learn/try new things. I have no interest to wage any religious wars, or fuel such one. bye -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
Matej Cepl wrote: > One term -- internal messages. forwarding messages to some special users is > so fun (like mail2news gateway posting to [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Then that is, by definition, not a smarthost, is it? Smarthost = "handle all my mail, kkthxbye." -- Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream? PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do... ---+- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
T wrote: > Problem is, the above setting doesn't cover my case, in which the > smarthost server requires username and password for SMTP SSL > authentication. No, but it is also not everything nullmailer can do. I was just giving a simple example of a simple case, no more, no less. The point stands, why install a full-featured MTA when something smaller to just get mail from A to B would do? -- Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream? PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do... ---+- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
Steve Lamb wrote: > Not sure why anyone who needs just a smarthost would use a > full-featured MTA. > Here's my entire configuration... > smtp.dmiyu.org smtp --port=25 One term -- internal messages. forwarding messages to some special users is so fun (like mail2news gateway posting to [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Matěj -- GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/blog/, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23 Marion St. #3, (617) 876-1259, ICQ 132822213 If in desperation, read the documentation! -- Brian D. Ripley, on R-help list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 00:28:34 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > Interesting. I also mam a non-mailgeek, but got Postfix working as a > Smarhost within an hour. "dpkg-reconfigure postfix" plus a little > Googling and it worked. (Note, though, that my ISP's smtp server is > unauthenticated.) On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 23:13:08 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > Here's my entire configuration... > smtp.dmiyu.org smtp --port=25 > > Doesn't get much simpler than that. Problem is, the above setting doesn't cover my case, in which the smarthost server requires username and password for SMTP SSL authentication. On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 01:30:42 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > If you needed to, setting up Postfix as an SMTP AUTH client using SASL can > be done in just a few minutes. I have no doubt of that, but it can only achieved by expert like you, Roberto, not normal John user like me. Last time, I followed the Debian Postfix/SASL/TLS HowTo, and carried through all the following steps: - configure postfix with SASL support - configure postfix TLS settings - creating my own local certificate CA - generate the server certificate - sign the server certificate - copy Signed Certificates to the right place - update the certificate expiration date - then configure the postfix Certificates settings but, all the effort end up with the following in the syslog: 23:07:25 cxmr postfix/postfix-script: refreshing the Postfix mail system 23:07:25 cxmr postfix/master[31693]: reload configuration 23:07:39 cxmr postfix/smtpd[9304]: fatal: no SASL authentication mechanisms 23:07:40 cxmr postfix/master[31693]: warning: process /usr/lib/postfix/smtpd pid 9304 exit status 1 23:07:40 cxmr postfix/master[31693]: warning: /usr/lib/postfix/smtpd: bad command startup -- throttling Is there any way for postfix to show me the entire SMTP communication process, ie, the SMTP command issued by MTA and respond get from server, right from the first helo command, through the relaying to ISP, beyong starttls, and till the very end quit command? This'd much more helpful than the syslog above. thanks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 00:05:36 -0600, Nate Duehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Generally anything that requires you to write a configuration file that >then writes another configuration file ... is over-engineered. Automake? Autoconf? M4? >anyone who doesn't know what they're doing can FUBAR anything. Sendmail is not the best solution for every need. But the OP asked for experience, and facts. As I said earlier: sendmail has the best integration with cyrus imapd via socket maps, and postfix's milter interface shows that postfix is a poor argument against monolithic design. Now if anyone else has factual information about sendmail vs. other MTAs, let's hear it. But anyone who posts more dogma, I will ignore.
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 00:36 +0200, T wrote: > My suggestion, speaking from my heart breaking experiences, is that if you > are a normal user, not a mail expert or system admin who need to play with > mail configuration as you full time job, stick with sendmail, and keep > away with postfix, exim, etc. I don't understand your logic. An full time mail admin would easily get his head around any MTA, and might opt for sendmail because of it's configurability. But an ordinary user who don't know much about how mail works? > Why? You'll have better support. Recently I need to config my MTA to use > smarthost to talk to my ISP. For several weeks, I tried to do it with > Exim. Then another several weeks on postfix, I searched and asked, all > efforts ended no where. If you had tried google: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-29,GGGL:en&q=postfix+smarthost The second hit would have given you the answer: http://ubuntu.wordpress.com/2005/09/07/setting-a-smarthost-in-postfix/ Also, if you go to www.postfix.org, click on "Documentation" and then on the first link "Basic Configuration" it takes you to page with examples of just that: http://www.postfix.org/BASIC_CONFIGURATION_README.html#relayhost And lets not forget that when you install postfix on debian it actually asks you if you want to configure a smarthost, and even if you say no, it still puts the relevant line in the config file. You could have solved this on your own in a minute. And if you had asked on the postfix mailing list you would definitely have had a response. The author, and at least two other guys who really know their stuff, patiently answer even the most basic repetitive questions. > Regarding better support, which's the most important thing to me as a > normal user, sendmail is much much better than other MTAs. If you had asked on the postfix mailing list you would definitely have had a response. The author, and at least two other guys who really know their stuff, patiently answer even the most basic repetitive questions. Just because you know sendmail much better than the other MTAs (if you don't know how to setup a relayhost in postfix then I take it you don't know much else about postfix), doesn't mean sendmail is really easier. It's just easier for you. Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:29:28 -0700, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Friday 01 September 2006 19:48, John Kelly wrote: >> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 20:33:38 -0700, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >I follow debian-security and I used to follow Bugtraq fairly closely. >> >> What's the ratio of sendmail bugs to linux kernel bugs? > >Straw man. What's the severity of sendmail bugs compared to kernel bugs? You started by making an unsupported assertion about sendmail bugs. Obviously, you can't support your assertion with any facts. >> Even Eric Allman says to treat it as a binary, and use .mc files for >> configuration. If you don't listen to the experts, who can you blame >> but yourself? >Eric Allman thus admits defeat when it comes to Sendmail passing the Unix >litmus test: simplicity and correctness. The OP asked for information without religious dogma. And since dogma is all you have to offer, goodbye.
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
T wrote: > Why? You'll have better support. Recently I need to config my MTA to use > smarthost to talk to my ISP. For several weeks, I tried to do it with > Exim. Then another several weeks on postfix, I searched and asked, all > efforts ended no where. Not sure why anyone who needs just a smarthost would use a full-featured MTA. Personally I love Exim4 yet on 3 machines I ripped it out in favor of nullmailer because all those machines need to do is forward mail to my mail server which does run Exim4. Here's my entire configuration... smtp.dmiyu.org smtp --port=25 Doesn't get much simpler than that. -- Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream? PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do... ---+- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
John Kelly wrote: sendmail.cf is not trivial. Even Eric Allman says to treat it as a binary, and use .mc files for configuration. If you don't listen to the experts, who can you blame but yourself? Generally anything that requires you to write a configuration file that then writes another configuration file... ... is over-engineered. Over-engineering leads to brittleness. Sendmail up and running and doing wicked fancy things is pretty nifty. But CHANGING sendmail configurations without a backup in a production environment is brittle. Very very brittle. (Brittle, as in "shatters easily, leaving you with quite a mess to clean up".) But then again, anyone who doesn't know what they're doing can FUBAR anything. Nate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 12:28:34AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > > Interesting. I also mam a non-mailgeek, but got Postfix working as > a Smarhost within an hour. "dpkg-reconfigure postfix" plus a little > Googling and it worked. (Note, though, that my ISP's smtp server is > unauthenticated.) > If you needed to, setting up Postfix as an SMTP AUTH client using SASL can be done in just a few minutes. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 T wrote: > Prejudice against sendmail? I think so personally. There are too > many people trash talk sendmail here, I think it is time that I > speak up. > > On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:09:29 +0100, John Kelly wrote: [snip] > Why? You'll have better support. Recently I need to config my MTA > to use smarthost to talk to my ISP. For several weeks, I tried to > do it with Exim. Then another several weeks on postfix, I > searched and asked, all efforts ended no where. > > Reluctantly, I get back to the "old" and "not good" sendmail. But > surprisingly, I succeeded within hours -- no need to ask anyone, > all the questions and answers are already on the net. Interesting. I also mam a non-mailgeek, but got Postfix working as a Smarhost within an hour. "dpkg-reconfigure postfix" plus a little Googling and it worked. (Note, though, that my ISP's smtp server is unauthenticated.) - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Is "common sense" really valid? For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins are mud people. However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE+RZBS9HxQb37XmcRAqw3AJ90vfwQ70t2WPdwcFTtZeKMz6UaWACglmsw /W5HtLFF+0lKitXWdrXIbYM= =Q9Uh -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
Prejudice against sendmail? I think so personally. There are too many people trash talk sendmail here, I think it is time that I speak up. On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:09:29 +0100, John Kelly wrote: >>Do you have some expirience with sendmail > > Sendmail has the best integration with cyrus imapd, via socket maps. > > Sendmail also has a commercial organization which relies on the open > source codebase, so you have more than one paid developer working with the > code. > > The linux kernel has security holes on a more frequent basis than > sendmail. But I stay up to date with fixes, and my systems have never > been compromised via sendmail or the linux kernel. [...other insightful info skipped...] I totally agree with John, every of his statement is backup by evidences. There seems so many people toning down sendmail. I have "followed the crowd", and only recently I've realized that I am the victim of such prejudice against sendmail. My suggestion, speaking from my heart breaking experiences, is that if you are a normal user, not a mail expert or system admin who need to play with mail configuration as you full time job, stick with sendmail, and keep away with postfix, exim, etc. Why? You'll have better support. Recently I need to config my MTA to use smarthost to talk to my ISP. For several weeks, I tried to do it with Exim. Then another several weeks on postfix, I searched and asked, all efforts ended no where. Reluctantly, I get back to the "old" and "not good" sendmail. But surprisingly, I succeeded within hours -- no need to ask anyone, all the questions and answers are already on the net. Regarding better support, which's the most important thing to me as a normal user, sendmail is much much better than other MTAs. Moreover, sendmail is better for troubleshooting as well. Just yesterday, I noticed my well configured sendmail does not work in my new grml0.8 any more. I get: /var/spool/mqueue (1 request) -Q-ID- --Size-- -Q-Time- Sender/Recipient--- k81Aupfj021818 1767 Fri Sep 1 12:56 MAILER-DAEMON (reply: read error from my.isp.com.) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Total requests: 1 Good luck to troubleshoot this with postfix, exim, etc. tong -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:09:29 +0100, John Kelly wrote: > daves:~ # ls -al /usr/sbin/sendmail > -r-xr-sr-x 1 root mail 681648 2006-08-12 14:59 /usr/sbin/sendmail This is not a good one. Though I don't doubt the flexibility of sendmail, the .mc and compiler dependency is a bit out of touch with Joe User. I learnt sendmail the hard and long way and used to like it very much. But on my production boxes, I rather have unprivileged daemons. Let's face it: sendmail is a fantastic, clunky, army knife for an MTA. But written when the ARPANET was a nice and friendly place. Uwe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Friday 01 September 2006 19:48, John Kelly wrote: > On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 20:33:38 -0700, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >I follow debian-security and I used to follow Bugtraq fairly closely. > > What's the ratio of sendmail bugs to linux kernel bugs? Straw man. What's the severity of sendmail bugs compared to kernel bugs? > >sendmail.cf is not trivial. > > Even Eric Allman says to treat it as a binary, and use .mc files for > configuration. If you don't listen to the experts, who can you blame > but yourself? Eric Allman thus admits defeat when it comes to Sendmail passing the Unix litmus test: simplicity and correctness. -- Paul Johnson Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp2ZpplzknQq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 20:33:38 -0700, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I follow debian-security and I used to follow Bugtraq fairly closely. What's the ratio of sendmail bugs to linux kernel bugs? >sendmail.cf is not trivial. Even Eric Allman says to treat it as a binary, and use .mc files for configuration. If you don't listen to the experts, who can you blame but yourself?
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Friday 01 September 2006 19:27, John Kelly wrote: > >It's a pretty hefty package with new bugs turning up on a > >somewhat regular basis. It's not as commonly used as it used to be, > >thankfully. > > You don't use it, but you keep up with the bugs? I follow debian-security and I used to follow Bugtraq fairly closely. > >It's like trying to change Windows registry keys with a hexidecimal > >editor instead of regedit. > > Oooga Booga! sendmail.cf is not trivial. -- Paul Johnson Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpcXKQHTidDs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 18:38:55 -0700, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Design weakness. Opinions without facts are like [blank] without [blank]. >It's a pretty hefty package with new bugs turning up on a >somewhat regular basis. It's not as commonly used as it used to be, >thankfully. You don't use it, but you keep up with the bugs? >It's like trying to change Windows registry keys with a hexidecimal >editor instead of regedit. Oooga Booga!
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Friday 01 September 2006 03:49, Martin Möller wrote: > As I was reading about the different MTAs, I collected some arguments pro > and contra sendmail, which almost everywhere can be found: > > Pros: > * very powerful > * very flexible > * biggest support and development community > > Cons: > * attacked frequently > (either because of design weakness or because it's so commonly > used?) Design weakness. It's a pretty hefty package with new bugs turning up on a somewhat regular basis. It's not as commonly used as it used to be, thankfully. > * difficult to configure It's like trying to change Windows registry keys with a hexidecimal editor instead of regedit. -- Paul Johnson Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpyzMLPiLRrT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
martin f krafft wrote: > Without trying to be religious or anything of that sort, I can > recommend postfix without restrictions to most anyone -- it has an > excellent security track record, a large support community, great > documentation, and it's really not that complex (even though it can > be, once you start doing more advanced stuff). Generally I tend to agree (and I wish postfix was made into the default MTA for Debian as it is almost every other Linux distribution -- except I am not sure whether RedHat kicked the sendmail habit already), but sendmail has one huge advantage -- they are still so widespread, especially in the commercial world, that any Linux certification (and I am afraid many jobs you may be interested in) required pretty good knowledge of sendmail. Which is the reason, why I have installed sendmail on my notebook (and read Bat-book!). Otherwise, in the totally ideal world, where I could choose whatever I want, it would be probably postfix. Best, Matěj -- GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/blog/, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23 Marion St. #3, (617) 876-1259, ICQ 132822213 If trains stop at train stations, what happens at work stations? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
Martin Möller wrote: > * very powerful > * very flexible Actually, most probably overkill for whatever you need (people who need advantages sendmail has over any competing MTAs usually don't need to ask questions ;-)). > Cons: > * attacked frequently > (either because of design weakness or because it's so commonly > used?) Both. Matěj -- GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/blog/, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23 Marion St. #3, (617) 876-1259, ICQ 132822213 Whenever Christ our life is revealed, then also you will be revealed with Him in glory. -- Colossians 3:4 (Green's Literal Translation) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 12:49:48 +0200, Martin Möller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Do you have some expirience with sendmail Sendmail has the best integration with cyrus imapd, via socket maps. Sendmail also has a commercial organization which relies on the open source codebase, so you have more than one paid developer working with the code. The linux kernel has security holes on a more frequent basis than sendmail. But I stay up to date with fixes, and my systems have never been compromised via sendmail or the linux kernel. With postfix the learning curve is not as steep as sendmail, and the postfix community is densely populated with unskilled users. There's more experience and skill in the sendmail community, though newcomers may find it hard to extract. On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 13:11:53 +0200, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >It's a monolithic setuid binary. It's flawed by design, IMHO. daves:~ # ls -al /usr/sbin/sendmail -r-xr-sr-x 1 root mail 681648 2006-08-12 14:59 /usr/sbin/sendmail setgid mail. Also see: http://www.postfix.org/MILTER_README.html which says: >The Postfix Milter implementation uses two different lists of mail >filters: one list of filters that are used for SMTP mail only, and >one list of filters that are used for non-SMTP mail. The two lists >have different capabilities, which is unfortunate. Avoiding this >would require major restructuring of Postfix. And thus postfix is a very weak argument against monolithic design.
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 01:11:53PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > It's a monolithic setuid binary. It's flawed by design, IMHO. Points > 1 and 3 above are just direct consequences of that. > > Without trying to be religious or anything of that sort, I can > recommend postfix without restrictions to most anyone -- it has an > excellent security track record, a large support community, great > documentation, and it's really not that complex (even though it can > be, once you start doing more advanced stuff). > > Other people will recommend and say the same about exim or the various > other MTAs. In the end, the choice is yours. Exim, Postfix and qmail are the big three contenders to answer the question "sick of sendmail, what else is reliable?" Exim is the Debian default. Postfix is nearly as well supported by Debian, and certainly has a large general user community. The Postfix FAQ has never failed to answer my questions. qmail has the least Debian support, due to uninteresting licensing issues, but has a large user community and excellent documentation (www.lifewithqmail.org, qmail.org). It runs nicely on Debian systems, and is unlikely to require upgrading. There are presumably some people running Courier-MTA; many more people use Courier's IMAP system in combination with qmail or Postfix. -dsr- -- -. --- -- --- .-. . ... . -.-. .-. . - ... ..-. ..- -.-. -.- - . -. ... .- ..-. ..- -.-. -. .-. -.. - ... ..- -.- -. .-- -.-. -.. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Prejudice against sendmail?
also sprach Martin Möller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.01.1249 +0200]: > Pros: > * very powerful > * very flexible > * biggest support and development community How did you arrive at that latter point? > Cons: > * attacked frequently > (either because of design weakness or because it's so commonly > used?) > * difficult to configure > * security holes It's a monolithic setuid binary. It's flawed by design, IMHO. Points 1 and 3 above are just direct consequences of that. Without trying to be religious or anything of that sort, I can recommend postfix without restrictions to most anyone -- it has an excellent security track record, a large support community, great documentation, and it's really not that complex (even though it can be, once you start doing more advanced stuff). Other people will recommend and say the same about exim or the various other MTAs. In the end, the choice is yours. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems "i've got a bike, you can ride it if you like, it's got a basket. a bell that rings, and things to make it look good. i'd give it to you if i could, but i borrowed it." -- syd barrett, 1967 signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
