Re: MTA choice
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:07:47PM +0200, Jean-Francois wrote:
Le mercredi 18 ao{t 2010 11:10:47, Gregory Edigarov a icrit :
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:07:58 +0200
Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote:
* Gregory Edigarov g...@bestnet.kharkov.ua [2010-08-17 09:29]:
Qmail??? Postfix??? easiest to use Oh, please don't... I would
even not give a dime to exim, which of the big guys I love the
most, in the terms of ease of configure. So now I definitelly see
OpenSMTPD as a very viable alternative.
exim is also the one with 80s design (even sendmail abandoned that)
and shit code.
pretty much ANYTHING else is a better choice.
Agreed. That left us to only the choice between sendmail/OpenSMTPD :)
I would definitelly advise for Opensmtpd, but not yet, at least not
before the 4.8 rel will be rolled, though in 4.7 it is quite stable,
and runs perfectly on a handful of my places.
Meta1, which is viewed by some as a sendmail made right is still in
very deep pre-alpha state... what a pity.
Have we yet an idea when it is planned for opensmtp to replace sendmail in the
default install ?
thanks,
J-F
doubtful in a foreseeable future
Gilles
--
Gilles Chehade
Re: MTA choice
Le mercredi 18 ao{t 2010 11:10:47, Gregory Edigarov a icrit :
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:07:58 +0200
Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote:
* Gregory Edigarov g...@bestnet.kharkov.ua [2010-08-17 09:29]:
Qmail??? Postfix??? easiest to use Oh, please don't... I would
even not give a dime to exim, which of the big guys I love the
most, in the terms of ease of configure. So now I definitelly see
OpenSMTPD as a very viable alternative.
exim is also the one with 80s design (even sendmail abandoned that)
and shit code.
pretty much ANYTHING else is a better choice.
Agreed. That left us to only the choice between sendmail/OpenSMTPD :)
I would definitelly advise for Opensmtpd, but not yet, at least not
before the 4.8 rel will be rolled, though in 4.7 it is quite stable,
and runs perfectly on a handful of my places.
Meta1, which is viewed by some as a sendmail made right is still in
very deep pre-alpha state... what a pity.
Have we yet an idea when it is planned for opensmtp to replace sendmail in the
default install ?
thanks,
J-F
Re: MeTA1 (was: MTA choice)
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:43:49 -0700 Claus Assmann ca+openbsd_m...@esmtp.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 18, 2010, Gregory Edigarov wrote: Meta1, which is viewed by some as a sendmail made right is still in very deep pre-alpha state... what a pity. Despite being called pre-alpha MeTA1 runs without problems for years at various sites. It's in pre-alpha to make my life easier: I can make changes without offering backward compatibility. While I try to avoid that, it reduces my workload if those changes are deemed necessary (however, I provided scripts/instructions for upgrading each time this happened). Alternatively, I could just go through the release process to make MeTA1-1.0.0 available and then start MeTA1-2.0.PreAlpha0, but I'm not sure whether that's the right thing to do. Do quote the MeTA1 docs: PreAlpha: This means the software is not feature complete and hence might be missing some functionality that is considered important by different users. Additionally, there might be no compatibility in data structures stored on disk between different pre-alpha versions, e.g., when upgrading from PreAlpha16 to PreAlpha17 the main queue format may have changed without checks in the software for this. Hence old queues must be drained before upgrading. Moreover, the protocols used for communication between MeTA1 modules may have changed without providing backward compatibility, therefore modules from different releases must not be used together. Such incompatibilities are usually stated in the list of changes. Yeah, I got the point, thank you. -- With best regards, Gregory Edigarov
Re: MTA choice
* Gregory Edigarov g...@bestnet.kharkov.ua [2010-08-17 09:29]: Qmail??? Postfix??? easiest to use Oh, please don't... I would even not give a dime to exim, which of the big guys I love the most, in the terms of ease of configure. So now I definitelly see OpenSMTPD as a very viable alternative. exim is also the one with 80s design (even sendmail abandoned that) and shit code. pretty much ANYTHING else is a better choice. -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting
Re: MTA choice
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:07:58 +0200 Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote: * Gregory Edigarov g...@bestnet.kharkov.ua [2010-08-17 09:29]: Qmail??? Postfix??? easiest to use Oh, please don't... I would even not give a dime to exim, which of the big guys I love the most, in the terms of ease of configure. So now I definitelly see OpenSMTPD as a very viable alternative. exim is also the one with 80s design (even sendmail abandoned that) and shit code. pretty much ANYTHING else is a better choice. Agreed. That left us to only the choice between sendmail/OpenSMTPD :) I would definitelly advise for Opensmtpd, but not yet, at least not before the 4.8 rel will be rolled, though in 4.7 it is quite stable, and runs perfectly on a handful of my places. Meta1, which is viewed by some as a sendmail made right is still in very deep pre-alpha state... what a pity. -- With best regards, Gregory Edigarov
Re: MTA choice
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:10:47PM +0300, Gregory Edigarov wrote: Agreed. That left us to only the choice between sendmail/OpenSMTPD :) I would definitelly advise for Opensmtpd, but not yet, at least not before the 4.8 rel will be rolled, though in 4.7 it is quite stable, and runs perfectly on a handful of my places. It works at home too, with a bit of hackery by myself. A while ago I noticed OpenSMTPD didn't deliver to aliases, but I'm unsure if it has been fixed yet or if I and mouring were the only ones that had the problem. I'm looking for the next release so that I can test this and know for sure! Meta1, which is viewed by some as a sendmail made right is still in very deep pre-alpha state... what a pity. -- With best regards, Gregory Edigarov regards, -peter
Re: MTA choice
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:10:47PM +0300, Gregory Edigarov wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:07:58 +0200 Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote: * Gregory Edigarov g...@bestnet.kharkov.ua [2010-08-17 09:29]: Qmail??? Postfix??? easiest to use Oh, please don't... I would even not give a dime to exim, which of the big guys I love the most, in the terms of ease of configure. So now I definitelly see OpenSMTPD as a very viable alternative. exim is also the one with 80s design (even sendmail abandoned that) and shit code. pretty much ANYTHING else is a better choice. Agreed. That left us to only the choice between sendmail/OpenSMTPD :) I would definitelly advise for Opensmtpd, but not yet, at least not before the 4.8 rel will be rolled, though in 4.7 it is quite stable, and runs perfectly on a handful of my places. Unfortunately it still lacks features required for many setups, I only use it and recommand to use it for people who have simple setups and who know their setup isn't going to evolve for a while... Gilles -- Gilles Chehade freelance developer/sysadmin/consultant http://www.poolp.org
Re: MTA choice
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:19:10AM +0200, Peter J. Philipp wrote: On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:10:47PM +0300, Gregory Edigarov wrote: Agreed. That left us to only the choice between sendmail/OpenSMTPD :) I would definitelly advise for Opensmtpd, but not yet, at least not before the 4.8 rel will be rolled, though in 4.7 it is quite stable, and runs perfectly on a handful of my places. It works at home too, with a bit of hackery by myself. A while ago I noticed OpenSMTPD didn't deliver to aliases, but I'm unsure if it has been fixed yet or if I and mouring were the only ones that had the problem. I'm looking for the next release so that I can test this and know for sure! That is strange, I have a few instances running with aliases resolution, maybe your configuration is broken ? Gilles -- Gilles Chehade freelance developer/sysadmin/consultant http://www.poolp.org
Re: MTA choice
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:19:10 +0200 Peter J. Philipp p...@centroid.eu wrote: It works at home too, with a bit of hackery by myself. A while ago I noticed OpenSMTPD didn't deliver to aliases, but I'm unsure if it has been fixed yet or if I and mouring were the only ones that had the problem. I'm looking for the next release so that I can test this and know for sure! Make sure that you didn't make the same mistake as I did: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=125664373516070 regards, Robert
Re: MTA choice
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 07:00:25PM +0200, Robert wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:19:10 +0200
Peter J. Philipp p...@centroid.eu wrote:
It works at home too, with a bit of hackery by myself. A while ago I
noticed
OpenSMTPD didn't deliver to aliases, but I'm unsure if it has been fixed yet
or if I and mouring were the only ones that had the problem. I'm looking
for
the next release so that I can test this and know for sure!
Make sure that you didn't make the same mistake as I did:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=125664373516070
regards,
Robert
Thanks. I'm trying to interpret that marc archive right. Was it that you
had your /etc/mailer.conf not updated to the opensmtpd binaries? Well anyhow
you made me look if my problem persists, so I tried it on a fairly recent
-current box (August 2nd) and I'm still seeing the fails that I had before.
Here is a session with opensmtpd:
# telnet localhost 25
Trying ::1...
Connected to localhost.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 uranus.centroid.eu ESMTP OpenSMTPD
helo remote
250 uranus.centroid.eu Hello remote [IPv6:::1], pleased to meet you
mail from: p...@solarscale.de
250 2.1.0 Sender ok
rcpt to: secur...@solarscale.de
530 5.0.0 Recipient rejected: secur...@solarscale.de
quit
221 2.0.0 uranus.centroid.eu Closing connection
Connection closed by foreign host.
Notice the 530 error, I'm unsure what this means but the log says:
Aug 18 19:31:13 caliban smtpd: (none): from=p...@solarscale.de,
relay=localhost.solarscale.de [IPv6:::1], stat=LocalError (530 5.0.0 Recipient
rejected: secur...@solarscale.de)
So to show you my /etc/mailer.conf:
# $OpenBSD: mailer.conf,v 1.3 2000/04/06 18:24:19 millert Exp $
#
# Execute the real sendmail program, named /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail
#
sendmail/usr/sbin/smtpctl
send-mail /usr/sbin/smtpctl
makemap /usr/libexec/smtpd/makemap
newaliases /usr/libexec/smtpd/makemap
Notice, makemap and newaliases point to the opensmtpd binaries.
Next I want to show you my aliases file from /etc/mail/aliases:
# more aliases
#
daemon: root
operator: root
bin:root
smmsp: root
popa3d: root
sshd: root
uucp: root
www:root
named: root
proxy: root
nobody: root
root: pjp
pjp:p...@solarscale.de
security: root
#
And lastly I'd like to show you my config:
# $OpenBSD: smtpd.conf,v 1.1 2009/03/17 00:00:16 gilles Exp $
# This is the smtpd server system-wide configuration file.
# See smtpd.conf(5) for more information.
hostname uranus.centroid.eu
map aliases { source db /etc/mail/aliases.db }
listen on localhost
listen on vic0
accept for local deliver to mda /usr/local/bin/procmail -f -
# must be from all because from local is default
accept from all for domain solarscale.de deliver to mda
/usr/local/bin/procmail -f -
accept from all for domain centroid.eu deliver to mda
/usr/local/bin/procmail -f -
accept from all for domain uranus.centroid.eu deliver to mda
/usr/local/bin/procmail -f -
accept from all for domain goldflipper.net deliver to mda
/usr/local/bin/procmail -f -
accept for all relay via 127.0.0.1 port 9025
So anyhow if you can spot the error, I'd be grateful otherwise I assume what
I want from opensmtpd is still not working.
Regards,
-peter
Re: SMTP syntax (was: MTA choice)
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010, Peter J. Philipp wrote: mail from: p...@solarscale.de Syntax error. The RFCs do not allow a space after the colon. rcpt to: secur...@solarscale.de same here. It's fascinating how some broken software caused other software to deal with that kind of garbage and almost every new MTA has to implement those hacks to be backward compatible.
Re: MeTA1 (was: MTA choice)
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010, Gregory Edigarov wrote: Meta1, which is viewed by some as a sendmail made right is still in very deep pre-alpha state... what a pity. Despite being called pre-alpha MeTA1 runs without problems for years at various sites. It's in pre-alpha to make my life easier: I can make changes without offering backward compatibility. While I try to avoid that, it reduces my workload if those changes are deemed necessary (however, I provided scripts/instructions for upgrading each time this happened). Alternatively, I could just go through the release process to make MeTA1-1.0.0 available and then start MeTA1-2.0.PreAlpha0, but I'm not sure whether that's the right thing to do. Do quote the MeTA1 docs: PreAlpha: This means the software is not feature complete and hence might be missing some functionality that is considered important by different users. Additionally, there might be no compatibility in data structures stored on disk between different pre-alpha versions, e.g., when upgrading from PreAlpha16 to PreAlpha17 the main queue format may have changed without checks in the software for this. Hence old queues must be drained before upgrading. Moreover, the protocols used for communication between MeTA1 modules may have changed without providing backward compatibility, therefore modules from different releases must not be used together. Such incompatibilities are usually stated in the list of changes.
Re: MTA choice
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 19:42:09 +0200 Peter J. Philipp p...@centroid.eu wrote: Thanks. I'm trying to interpret that marc archive right. Was it that you had your /etc/mailer.conf not updated to the opensmtpd binaries? Well anyhow Yes, that's correct. Just to be sure: you did run newaliases? regards, Robert
Re: MTA choice
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 08:47:43PM +0200, Robert wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 19:42:09 +0200 Peter J. Philipp p...@centroid.eu wrote: Thanks. I'm trying to interpret that marc archive right. Was it that you had your /etc/mailer.conf not updated to the opensmtpd binaries? Well anyhow Yes, that's correct. Just to be sure: you did run newaliases? Yes I did. :-) regards, Robert Cheers, -peter
Re: MTA choice
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:36:00 -0700 Chris Cappuccio ch...@nmedia.net wrote: Kevin Chadwick [ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk] wrote: One thing which is debateable for hours is smtp connections and verps which is why an rfc can't be decided upon (performance (for spammers too) vs functionality). qmail has taught other MTAs far more than any other MTA has taught qmail. That's right, qmail was obviously a big inspiration for Postfix as far as perforamnce, process isolation and security were concerned, but luckily not in the configration department, as Postfix is the easiest to use performance MTA bar none! Qmail??? Postfix??? easiest to use Oh, please don't... I would even not give a dime to exim, which of the big guys I love the most, in the terms of ease of configure. So now I definitelly see OpenSMTPD as a very viable alternative. -- With best regards, Gregory Edigarov
Re: MTA choice
Kevin Chadwick [ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk] wrote: One thing which is debateable for hours is smtp connections and verps which is why an rfc can't be decided upon (performance (for spammers too) vs functionality). qmail has taught other MTAs far more than any other MTA has taught qmail. That's right, qmail was obviously a big inspiration for Postfix as far as perforamnce, process isolation and security were concerned, but luckily not in the configration department, as Postfix is the easiest to use performance MTA bar none! -- I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance -Socrates
Re: MTA choice
Dave Anderson wrote: On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote: Dave Anderson wrote: On Fri, 13 Aug 2010,j...@fixedpointgroup.com wrote: sendmail is fine if you have a few users at a relatively quiet domain, all of whom you want to have system accounts on the mailserver. You imply that sendmail is _only_ fine for such limited uses, which is certainly not true in my experience; I'm curious as to why you believe this. please don't try to put words in my mouth, it makes you look stupid. at no point did i say what you claim i 'implied' i.e. that it is the *only* use case, you assume too much. Implication is, by definition, about what you _didn't_ explicitly say. In the context of this thread, the implication seems quite clear to me -- but since it isn't what you intended, there's no reason for further discussion of it. it's a good thing you're doing whatever you're doing now because you'd make a terrible mathematician: i say 'item A is used for task A' you say 'your statement implies that item A is not suitable for task B or any other task besides task A' i say 'you are fucking retarded because that is not an implication of my original statement. usage is not a 1-to-1 mapping and a given item may be used many different ways' you say 'i define implication however the hell i want and live in a fantasy land, k thx bye'
Re: MTA choice
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:31:49 -0400 Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote: Qmail is best-known among everyone equipped with sufficient experience as the cause of numerous operational issues and a fair amount of abuse thanks to a number of very poor design and implementation decisions. Many of these have been discussed over the year in exhaustive detail on the appropriate mailing lists and newsgroups. Anyone who isn't fully aware of this simply hasn't been paying attention. ---Rsk I suppose your also aware of the sites that show that much of this rhetoric is complete bullshit, these happen to back it up with fact rather than making sweeping unsupported or incorrect statements. I asked you for examples, give me an example that isn't covered by the spamcontrol patch at fehcom.de. One thing which is debateable for hours is smtp connections and verps which is why an rfc can't be decided upon (performance (for spammers too) vs functionality). qmail has taught other MTAs far more than any other MTA has taught qmail.
MTA choice
Hi, I want to install a mailserver. What is the easiest and the most secure solution ? OpenBSD comes with Sendmail. I seen a lot of people use Postfix instead Sendmail. Is there someone to advice me about the choice of the MTA ? Thank's.
Re: MTA choice
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:55 AM, open...@e-solutions.re wrote: Hi, I want to install a mailserver. What is the easiest and the most secure solution ? OpenBSD comes with Sendmail. I seen a lot of people use Postfix instead Sendmail. Is there someone to advice me about the choice of the MTA ? Why do you think OpenBSD ships with (a custom and secure) sendmail by default? Do you think it is because that is the easiest and most secure option or do you think by installing postfix you'll be all secure and stuff? -- chs
Re: MTA choice
I only want to know what is better (easiest way, most secure) to use. And have your advice. On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:04:01 +0200, Christer Solskogen christer.solsko...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:55 AM, open...@e-solutions.re wrote: Hi, I want to install a mailserver. What is the easiest and the most secure solution ? OpenBSD comes with Sendmail. I seen a lot of people use Postfix instead Sendmail. Is there someone to advice me about the choice of the MTA ? Why do you think OpenBSD ships with (a custom and secure) sendmail by default? Do you think it is because that is the easiest and most secure option or do you think by installing postfix you'll be all secure and stuff?
Re: MTA choice
I only want to know what is better (easiest way, most secure) to use. And have your advice. He just gave it to you. sendmail. Why do you think OpenBSD ships with (a custom and secure) sendmail by default? -- Later Peter
Re: MTA choice
On 13/08/2010, at 7:41 PM, open...@e-solutions.re wrote: I only want to know what is better (easiest way, most secure) to use. And have your advice. Easiest doesn't necessarily fit with most secure ... or everyone would be using Windows and Macs? You have to understand what you are setting up, and sometimes that understanding doesn't come easy and security isn't a check box. What is easy for you - is it the same as what is easy for me? I started from scratch with the O'Reilly sendmail book ... It's your network, your requirements, your time. Webmail? TLS? POP? IMAP? Volume of email? Why do you think there are so many choices in open source - what one person found easy/useful/secure didn't work for someone else. sendmail, popa3d, and openwebmail have worked for /me/ for a very low volume mail server. I didn't find it that easy (but I learnt a lot on the way, it wasn't time wasted.) I don't know how secure it is. But as Christer has said, if it's in the OpenBSD base, that should mean something. As always - YMMV! (And did you see http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq1.html#HowAbout) On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:04:01 +0200, Christer Solskogen christer.solsko...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:55 AM, open...@e-solutions.re wrote: Hi, I want to install a mailserver. What is the easiest and the most secure solution ? OpenBSD comes with Sendmail. I seen a lot of people use Postfix instead Sendmail. Is there someone to advice me about the choice of the MTA ? Why do you think OpenBSD ships with (a custom and secure) sendmail by default? Do you think it is because that is the easiest and most secure option or do you think by installing postfix you'll be all secure and stuff?
Re: MTA choice
* Peter Miller feu...@gmail.com [2010-08-13 10:46]: I only want to know what is better (easiest way, most secure) to use. And have your advice. He just gave it to you. sendmail. I would never use sendmail for anything halfway serious. -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting
Re: MTA choice
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:55:13 +0400 open...@e-solutions.re wrote: I want to install a mailserver. What is the easiest and the most secure solution ? It depends - as mentioned before, you need to specify the environment, mail volume etc. My opinion: *) Since 4.6 OpenBSD ships with its own daemon: man smtpd. From what I remember it's not meant for production yet, but just for sending internal traffic (logs, notifications etc.) it works fine for me. *) Use qmail for large volume traffic, but be sure to read a bit about its developer environment before ;) *) If none of those two seem to be right for you, well, then use Postfix... regards, Robert
Re: MTA choice
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote: * Peter Miller feu...@gmail.com [2010-08-13 10:46]: I only want to know what is better (easiest way, most secure) to use. And have your advice. He just gave it to you. sendmail. I would never use sendmail for anything halfway serious. what about qmail? ;-) --Siju
Re: MTA choice
Siju George sgeorge...@gmail.com writes: what about qmail? ;-) beavis huh, hurr, he said qmail /beavis -- Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.bsdly.net/ http://www.nuug.no/ Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
Re: MTA choice
You can try smtpd(8) which is in base. Some people reported that they are using it in production already. At least configuration is much more easier then in sendmail(8) On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:55 AM, open...@e-solutions.re wrote: Hi, I want to install a mailserver. What is the easiest and the most secure solution ? OpenBSD comes with Sendmail. I seen a lot of people use Postfix instead Sendmail. Is there someone to advice me about the choice of the MTA ? Thank's. -- b If youbre good at something, never do it for free.b B bThe Joker
Re: MTA choice
On 08/13/2010 10:49 AM, Richard Toohey wrote: But as Christer has said, if it's in the OpenBSD base, that should mean something. Just because it's in base doesn't mean that it's the best choice. After all, it *could* just mean that noone has had the time and/or energy to replace it with something better in base. I think few would argue that all things in base are perfect, and that there is no room for improvement. /Fredrik Henbjork, who hates Sendmail from a usability point of view.
Re: MTA choice
Yeah, /me for example... handles some 100,000 connects per day, with spam ratio about 3/1...4/1. i.e. some 25,000 deliveries per day. On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:35:44 +0200 Tomas Bodzar tomas.bod...@gmail.com wrote: You can try smtpd(8) which is in base. Some people reported that they are using it in production already. At least configuration is much more easier then in sendmail(8) On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:55 AM, open...@e-solutions.re wrote: Hi, I want to install a mailserver. What is the easiest and the most secure solution ? OpenBSD comes with Sendmail. I seen a lot of people use Postfix instead Sendmail. Is there someone to advice me about the choice of the MTA ? Thank's. -- b If youbre good at something, never do it for free.b B bThe Joker -- With best regards, Gregory Edigarov
Re: MTA choice
On 8/13/10 7:35 AM, Tomas Bodzar wrote: You can try smtpd(8) which is in base. Some people reported that they are using it in production already. At least configuration is much more easier then in sendmail(8) I have been for almost 18 months now. I use it as spam filter and front end for others. I do not have users n that box, not that it couldn't I guess. I never tried to make it so. It's risky, yes, but you don't make an omelet without breaking eggs! I ran into some issue time to time before, all in misc@ if you want to see it. But I must say in general, it's been very good for me. I upgrade it to the latest time to time when I see Gilles dong lots of commit to it. I run two of them, so if one goes south, I can switch to a second one real quick, but so far, it never happened to me to have big issues. The only one I had was the virtual domain hosting that just didn't work as explain in the man page and Gilles did work on it. If you want something simple, that's it. For a small server, I sure would go with it. But keep in mind it's not fully announce yet as ready for production, however, like the project, it's announcing productions things when they are rock solid. That doesn't mean smtpd is not, so if you run it, you help testing it and if you ran into issues, so far they all have been corrected pretty darn fast! So, do as you see fit, but if you are not scare of running bleeding edge new OpenBSD stuff, go for it and you will have fun as long as you are not scare to get your hand in it and do your own research when/if needed. Not that it required lots of hand holding so far. But it deserved more credit then Gilles is welling to give it! (; I would say he is very conservative, just like everyone else in the project. They give you the best, so enjoy it! I sure would give it a run for good, I did for a long time so far and I have no complains for how I use it so far! YMMV. Daniel
Re: MTA choice
On 8/13/10 8:27 AM, Fredrik Henbjork wrote: On 08/13/2010 10:49 AM, Richard Toohey wrote: But as Christer has said, if it's in the OpenBSD base, that should mean something. Just because it's in base doesn't mean that it's the best choice. After all, it *could* just mean that noone has had the time and/or energy to replace it with something better in base. I think few would argue that all things in base are perfect, and that there is no room for improvement. Hmmm. Sendmail was in base and is still in the system, but was replace as the default MTA by smtpd a few release ago. So, I sure don't thin you will see smtpd being replace again by something else in base. It was already done. Check the archive. It was announced and done in 4.6 http://openbsd.org/46.html New tools: * Added smtpd(8), a new privilege-separated SMTP daemon. Are you saying you want the replacement in place now to be replace again!?!?!?...
Re: MTA choice
* Daniel Ouellet dan...@presscom.net [2010-08-13 15:04]: Hmmm. Sendmail was in base and is still in the system, but was replace as the default MTA by smtpd a few release ago. bullshit. -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting
Re: MTA choice
On 8/13/10 9:08 AM, Henning Brauer wrote: * Daniel Ouelletdan...@presscom.net [2010-08-13 15:04]: Hmmm. Sendmail was in base and is still in the system, but was replace as the default MTA by smtpd a few release ago. bullshit. You are right as out of the box MTA in standard operation. I should phase it differently. Like I said sendmail is still there. smtpd is in base as well, but sendmail is the one in default operation. My mistake in the details. # man smtpd | grep appeared The smtpd program first appeared in OpenBSD 4.6. But bullshit it was from me. sendmail is still the default MTA yes, but you have the choice and can use smtpd.
Re: MTA choice
On 08/13/2010 03:00 PM, Daniel Ouellet wrote: Hmmm. Sendmail was in base and is still in the system, but was replace as the default MTA by smtpd a few release ago. So, I sure don't thin you will see smtpd being replace again by something else in base. It was already done. Check the archive. It was announced and done in 4.6 http://openbsd.org/46.html New tools: * Added smtpd(8), a new privilege-separated SMTP daemon. Are you saying you want the replacement in place now to be replace again!?!?!?... No. For clarification; I don't believe there is such a thing as the universal best MTA, since different users have different requirements. I personally like a smallish MTA, like smtpd(8), as the default MTA in base. But I also like my network servers to have been field proven in the nasty wilderness by others for some time before starting to use them myself in production, and smptd(8) is still a rather fresh piece of software. Were there any other reasons for writing smtpd(8), instead of just importing Postfix into base as the default MTA, besides Postfix's license? /Fredrik Henbjork, who also wonders if anyone here has any strong opinions regarding the feature set and security of the Apache in base, when compared to recent versions of (the BSD- licensed and C-based) Nginx and lighttpd?
Re: MTA choice
On 08/13/2010 12:27 PM, Henning Brauer wrote: * Peter Millerfeu...@gmail.com [2010-08-13 10:46]: I only want to know what is better (easiest way, most secure) to use. And have your advice. He just gave it to you. sendmail. I would never use sendmail for anything halfway serious. What are your views on qmail versus Postfix? Note that I'm *not* criticising your choice of qmail, and especially not now that it's in the public domain. I simply want to learn more about the subject. /Fredrik Henbjork
Re: MTA choice
But I also like my network servers to have been field proven in the nasty wilderness by others for some time before starting to use them myself in production, Men, that's rather very selfish! So, you want everyone one else to do the work, but not you!? You don't want to participate in testing things and improving them, but rather, just sit back and demand that you are served on a silver plate? Or may be gold even here... Sorry if that sound ash here, but I can't believe what I read here It does come out that way as you put it. I hope it's not what you mean right? I must be wrong for sure... Or full of bullshit again. (; Were there any other reasons for writing smtpd(8), instead of just importing Postfix into base as the default MTA, besides Postfix's license? Yes, license and that's in the archive. Help yourself to the answer. it's been beaten to death. /Fredrik Henbjork, who also wonders if anyone here has any strong opinions regarding the feature set and security of the Apache in base, when compared to recent versions of (the BSD- licensed and C-based) Nginx and lighttpd? Same here. It's been explore in the archive as well. Help yourself to the answer. Or is it like your first statement. You want others to do the work for you and point you to the answer? Best, Daniel
Re: MTA choice
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 open...@e-solutions.re wrote: Hi, I want to install a mailserver. What is the easiest and the most secure solution ? OpenBSD comes with Sendmail. I seen a lot of people use Postfix instead Sendmail. Is there someone to advice me about the choice of the MTA ? Thank's. For a basic mailserver, there's no reason to not use standard Senamdaill To make it even simpler, install Webmin - the sendmail manager tool is very useful. Lee
Re: MTA choice
Henning Brauer wrote: * Peter Millerfeu...@gmail.com [2010-08-13 10:46]: I only want to know what is better (easiest way, most secure) to use. And have your advice. He just gave it to you. sendmail. I would never use sendmail for anything halfway serious. ++ sendmail is fine if you have a few users at a relatively quiet domain, all of whom you want to have system accounts on the mailserver. smtpd does similarly but has unpredictable behavior at best. i spent many hours fiddling with smtpd until i gave up on it. postfix is great because of the virtual user support, meaning that your mail users do not require system accounts, and configurability. hosting several domains, all with separate mailboxes e.g. u...@domain1.com and u...@domain2.com is done pretty easily by postfix. in the instance that you need support from the postfix-users mailing list don your douchebag-proof-suit and you should be ok so long as you don't subscribe to that list. i have heard good things about qmail but never used it myself. FYI - this is a very old and contentious question - 'which mta is best?'
Re: MTA choice
I want to install a mailserver. What is the easiest and the most secure solution ? Your mom.
Re: MTA choice
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:23:30 -0500, j...@fixedpointgroup.com j...@fixedpointgroup.com wrote: sendmail is fine if you have a few users at a relatively quiet domain, all of whom you want to have system accounts on the mailserver. smtpd does similarly but has unpredictable behavior at best. i spent many hours fiddling with smtpd until i gave up on it. postfix is great because of the virtual user support, meaning that your mail users do not require system accounts, and configurability. hosting several domains, all with separate mailboxes e.g. u...@domain1.com and u...@domain2.com is done pretty easily by postfix. in the instance that you need support from the postfix-users mailing list don your douchebag-proof-suit and you should be ok so long as you don't subscribe to that list. i have heard good things about qmail but never used it myself. Thank's for your answer.
Re: MTA choice
* Fredrik Henbjork fredrik.henbjork.maill...@gmail.com [2010-08-13 15:57]: What are your views on qmail versus Postfix? irrelevant here anyway. -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting
Re: MTA choice
On 13 August 2010 16:30, open...@e-solutions.re wrote: On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:23:30 -0500, j...@fixedpointgroup.com j...@fixedpointgroup.com wrote: sendmail is fine if you have a few users at a relatively quiet domain, all of whom you want to have system accounts on the mailserver. smtpd does similarly but has unpredictable behavior at best. i spent many hours fiddling with smtpd until i gave up on it. postfix is great because of the virtual user support, meaning that your mail users do not require system accounts, and configurability. hosting several domains, all with separate mailboxes e.g. u...@domain1.com and u...@domain2.com is done pretty easily by postfix. in the instance that you need support from the postfix-users mailing list don your douchebag-proof-suit and you should be ok so long as you don't subscribe to that list. i have heard good things about qmail but never used it myself. Thank's for your answer. Qmail has worked for me for many years. We get about 50.00 smtp connections a day and do about 200K deliveries a month.
Re: MTA choice
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:27:56 +0200 Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote: * Peter Miller feu...@gmail.com [2010-08-13 10:46]: I only want to know what is better (easiest way, most secure) to use. And have your advice. He just gave it to you. sendmail. I would never use sendmail for anything halfway serious. qmail first grabbed my attention which it already had when I noticed a large defense organisation using it. I love qmail especially for it's use of the unix philosophy of many small parts and that it was built with security and simplicity in mind. It's not too easy to setup or keep track of vulnerabilities in patches, but spamcontrol at www.fehcom.de makes it easier to turn qmail into a fully functional and modern MTA, possibly even more functional and patched than you would desire, but still great. qmail is almost definately easier than messing with sendmails configs, ONCE the install is over with too. I don't know but believe postfix has the shallowest learning curve and has always had a good security record. Sendmail will likely make OpenBSD upgrades easier and inherits the eyes of OpenBSD developers.
Re: MTA choice
On 8/13/2010 2:55 AM, open...@e-solutions.re wrote: Is there someone to advice me about the choice of the MTA ? I've used Courier-MTA on OpenBSD for a few years. I think it's a good choice if you want an all-in-one package but you don't think your mail server should come with an OS (Zimbra). I also have Maia Mailguard in front of it to catch spam, and the base OS Sendmail in front of that because I don't trust Maia to listen on the Internet.
Re: MTA choice
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:55:13AM +0400, open...@e-solutions.re wrote: I want to install a mailserver. What is the easiest and the most secure solution ? OpenBSD comes with Sendmail. I seen a lot of people use Postfix instead Sendmail. Is there someone to advice me about the choice of the MTA ? Generically speaking -- and I'm digesting several decades of experience into a few paragraphs, so I'm going to make some sweeping statements that, of course, have exceptions. Except for the last one. If you've never done this before, then stick with sendmail because it minimizes the probability that you'll screw up. Postfix is easier to configure than sendmail. It also benefits from having been designed after many years of experience with sendmail, so it incorporates some lessons learned. It is relatively straighforward to switch between the two, once you've mastered some basic concepts. In the contemporary environment, either is a good choice for relatively secure, relatively high-performance environments. Both can be configured/customized extensively and there is plenty of support for both, from multiple sources. Exim is newer and arguably still easier to configure. It might be a good choice for someone with limited requirements and little experience. Courier is well-integrated with the other components necessary to make a fully-featured mail server, and is worth consideration if its feature set overlaps well with your requirements. Qmail is crap and is only used by people who don't know any better. ---Rsk
Re: MTA choice
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, j...@fixedpointgroup.com wrote: sendmail is fine if you have a few users at a relatively quiet domain, all of whom you want to have system accounts on the mailserver. You imply that sendmail is _only_ fine for such limited uses, which is certainly not true in my experience; I'm curious as to why you believe this. It doesn't require (or, AFAICT, benefit in any way) from users having any sort of account (let alone a system account) on the mailserver itself, and it's not hard to set up multiple domains on the same server. While I haven't needed to do it myself, there's plenty of anecdotal evidence of large, busy mailservers running sendmail. I'm _not_ arguing whether sendmail is better or worse than the alternatives; while I've looked at a few others, I've never used any of them -- so I don't have any real basis for an opinion. I _have_ been using sendmail (on a light-duty, mostly-home mailserver) for 15 years. Dave -- Dave Anderson d...@daveanderson.com
Re: MTA choice
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:14:52 -0400 Qmail is crap and is only used by people who don't know any better. ---Rsk Actually qmail is only used by people who do know better because otherwise people like yahoo wouldn't go to such lengths to install it (caused by it's old licensing). There is a lot of bullshit about qmail floating around which I assume drove you to your opinion, please tell me why it is crap perhaps privately, after all this is an OpenBSD and not a qmail mailing list and I am currently assuming that what you have to say is wrong or has a patch for it.
Re: MTA choice
On 8/13/2010 at 9:04 AM Christer Solskogen wrote: |On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:55 AM, open...@e-solutions.re wrote: | Hi, | | I want to install a mailserver. | What is the easiest and the most secure solution ? | OpenBSD comes with Sendmail. I seen a lot of people use Postfix instead | Sendmail. | Is there someone to advice me about the choice of the MTA ? | | |Why do you think OpenBSD ships with (a custom and secure) sendmail by |default? = sendmail has an OpenBSD compatible license? :)
Re: MTA choice
On 8/13/2010 at 3:43 AM Peter Miller wrote: | I only want to know what is better (easiest way, most secure) to use. | And have your advice. | |He just gave it to you. sendmail. = My opinion, and my opinion only - if you do notd to change any of the configuration settings from the base install, then stay with sendmail. Once you need to start getting into the sendmail configuration files to use, for example, one transport for one domain and another transport as the default, then sendmail's configuration rapidly becomes daunting. I moved over to Postfix because of its excellent security and ease of configuration. YMMV and all that stuff.
Re: MTA choice
- Original Message From: open...@e-solutions.re open...@e-solutions.re To: misc@openbsd.org Cc: Christer Solskogen christer.solsko...@gmail.com Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 12:41:36 AM Subject: Re: MTA choice I only want to know what is better (easiest way, most secure) to use. And have your advice. On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:04:01 +0200, Christer Solskogen christer.solsko...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:55 AM, open...@e-solutions.re wrote: Hi, I want to install a mailserver. What is the easiest and the most secure solution ? OpenBSD comes with Sendmail. I seen a lot of people use Postfix instead Sendmail. Is there someone to advice me about the choice of the MTA ? Why do you think OpenBSD ships with (a custom and secure) sendmail by default? Do you think it is because that is the easiest and most secure option or do you think by installing postfix you'll be all secure and stuff? The one that you are most familiar with will always be the most secure solution. If you think choosing a particular product will ensure security you are wrong from the start. I happen to like sendmail and use it still --- James A. Peltier james_a_pelt...@yahoo.ca
Re: MTA choice
On 08/13/2010 04:02 PM, Daniel Ouellet wrote: But I also like my network servers to have been field proven in the nasty wilderness by others for some time before starting to use them myself in production, Men, that's rather very selfish! So, you want everyone one else to do the work, but not you!? You don't want to participate in testing things and improving them, but rather, just sit back and demand that you are served on a silver plate? Or may be gold even here... Yes, I'm selfish enough to want to run stable and secure software on my *production* systems. It's hard enough to find software that works really well as it is, and especially if it faces the Internet and the Bad People on it who want to exploit your systems, even if you limit yourself to stable releases from quality driven projects. So I prefer to do testing on designated test systems, instead of taking unnecessary risks with the production systems I'm responsible for. But I bet you're the kind of guy who gladly volunteers to put yourself and your family in a car running freshly written, and poorly tested, 0.0.0.0.0.1-alfa version brake system software to help iron out the bugs in it. Or are you also a selfish bastard, just like me? ;-D /Fredrik Henbjork
Re: MTA choice
Dave Anderson wrote: On Fri, 13 Aug 2010,j...@fixedpointgroup.com wrote: sendmail is fine if you have a few users at a relatively quiet domain, all of whom you want to have system accounts on the mailserver. You imply that sendmail is _only_ fine for such limited uses, which is certainly not true in my experience; I'm curious as to why you believe this. please don't try to put words in my mouth, it makes you look stupid. at no point did i say what you claim i 'implied' i.e. that it is the *only* use case, you assume too much. sendmail is a piece of software that is historically notorious for security problems and has only been tuned up to get in the openbsd tree with input from some very sharp people. that says nothing about its ability to handle load, which it obviously can do just fine based on the ubiquity of its past and present usage as an mta. It doesn't require (or, AFAICT, benefit in any way) from users having any sort of account (let alone a system account) on the mailserver itself, and it's not hard to set up multiple domains on the same server. how about you *read* my earlier email before responding to shit that wasn't in it. try setting up a mailserver that does the following with sendmail and you will see the limitations of sendmail: - mail delivers to either mbox or maildir on the same machine as the mta - there is a per email address login for users who do not have a system account - host multiple domains and want separate mailboxes with separate logins to access each mailbox - authentication is done against a single password store for pop/imap and smtp auth - a copy of every email passing through the server is kept for auditing purposes sendmail works great when the final destination is a system user who may or may not run an mta on their workstation. this used to be one of the most common ways to configure a unix system e.g. students at a university who have shells and can register for classes on the same system. While I haven't needed to do it myself, there's plenty of anecdotal evidence of large, busy mailservers running sendmail. call CNN, this is serious news. thanks for letting us all know about this! I'm _not_ arguing whether sendmail is better or worse than the alternatives; while I've looked at a few others, I've never used any of them -- so I don't have any real basis for an opinion. I _have_ been using sendmail (on a light-duty, mostly-home mailserver) for 15 years. so why, exactly, did you choose to respond to my email? oh, that's right, you're a douchebag. i love rhetorical questions. thanks for cutting snippets out of my original email, taking them out of context and being annoying.
Re: MTA choice
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:00 PM, open...@e-solutions.re wrote: i have heard good things about qmail but never used it myself. Thank's for your answer. http://www.lifewithqmail.org/ldap/ name sounds similar. date. --Siju
Re: MTA choice
Real hackers do their email with awk and nc.
Re: MTA choice
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote: Dave Anderson wrote: On Fri, 13 Aug 2010,j...@fixedpointgroup.com wrote: sendmail is fine if you have a few users at a relatively quiet domain, all of whom you want to have system accounts on the mailserver. You imply that sendmail is _only_ fine for such limited uses, which is certainly not true in my experience; I'm curious as to why you believe this. please don't try to put words in my mouth, it makes you look stupid. at no point did i say what you claim i 'implied' i.e. that it is the *only* use case, you assume too much. Implication is, by definition, about what you _didn't_ explicitly say. In the context of this thread, the implication seems quite clear to me -- but since it isn't what you intended, there's no reason for further discussion of it. [Lots of overreaction snipped.] Dave -- Dave Anderson d...@daveanderson.com
Re: MTA choice
2010/8/13 Jacob Yocom-Piatt j...@fixedpointgroup.com: sendmail is a piece of software that is historically notorious for security problems IMHO this opinion is based on information from the last century; how many security problems were there in the last decade? Best Martin
Re: MTA choice
Qmail is crap and is only used by people who don't know any better. ---Rsk DJB wrote qmail. He codes circles around most clowns and talks a lot of smack (similar to our noble leader) and he can back it up too. Take the qmail challenge. I don't care for MTA software at all, but qmail is pure art. Most people bitch about it because it's different but most great things are. No need to trash it without any evidence. Sincerely, IR
Re: MTA choice
Well he believes that hard disks never lie. I guess he has a CS degree. On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:09:41PM +, Internet Retard wrote: Qmail is crap and is only used by people who don't know any better. ---Rsk DJB wrote qmail. He codes circles around most clowns and talks a lot of smack (similar to our noble leader) and he can back it up too. Take the qmail challenge. I don't care for MTA software at all, but qmail is pure art. Most people bitch about it because it's different but most great things are. No need to trash it without any evidence. Sincerely, IR
Re: MTA choice
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:20:15 -0500 From: sl...@peereboom.us To: webret...@live.com CC: r...@gsp.org; misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: MTA choice Well he believes that hard disks never lie. I guess he has a CS degree. Go away clown. And take your practical engineering degree with you. Leave us to our theory. That is meant only as a joke. All hail Marco and Theo and... the other two guys. Sincerely, IR On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:09:41PM +, Internet Retard wrote: Qmail is crap and is only used by people who don't know any better. ---Rsk DJB wrote qmail. He codes circles around most clowns and talks a lot of smack (similar to our noble leader) and he can back it up too. Take the qmail challenge. I don't care for MTA software at all, but qmail is pure art. Most people bitch about it because it's different but most great things are. No need to trash it without any evidence. Sincerely, IR
Re: MTA choice
Qmail is best-known among everyone equipped with sufficient experience as the cause of numerous operational issues and a fair amount of abuse thanks to a number of very poor design and implementation decisions. Many of these have been discussed over the year in exhaustive detail on the appropriate mailing lists and newsgroups. Anyone who isn't fully aware of this simply hasn't been paying attention. ---Rsk
Re: MTA choice
Steve Shockley wrote: On 8/13/2010 2:55 AM, open...@e-solutions.re wrote: Is there someone to advice me about the choice of the MTA ? I've used Courier-MTA on OpenBSD for a few years. I think it's a good choice if you want an all-in-one package but you don't think your mail server should come with an OS (Zimbra). I'll second that. We've used Courier-MTA for at least five years and it is very robust with rock-solid performance and a good security record. (We use sendmail too btw, in spam-filtering mail frontends.) Unfortunately Courier-MTA isn't in ports (although its cousins Courier- IMAP and Courier-POP3 are), but it is pretty straight-forward to compile from source (read up carefully on the rather lengthy but well-documented compile-and-install process though). http://www.courier-mta.org/ /B -- internetlabbet.se / work: +46 8 551 124 80 / Words must Benny LC6fgren/ mobile: +46 70 718 11 90 / be weighed, / fax:+46 8 551 124 89/not counted. /email: benny -at- internetlabbet.se
Re: MTA choice
On 8/13/2010 at 11:26 PM Benny LC6fgren wrote: |Steve Shockley wrote: | On 8/13/2010 2:55 AM, open...@e-solutions.re wrote: | Is there someone to advice me about the choice of the MTA ? | | I've used Courier-MTA on OpenBSD for a few years. I think it's a good | choice if you want an all-in-one package but you don't think your mail | server should come with an OS (Zimbra). | |I'll second that. We've used Courier-MTA for at least five years and it |is very robust with rock-solid performance and a good security record. | |(We use sendmail too btw, in spam-filtering mail frontends.) | |Unfortunately Courier-MTA isn't in ports (although its cousins Courier- |IMAP and Courier-POP3 are), but it is pretty straight-forward to compile |from source (read up carefully on the rather lengthy but well-documented |compile-and-install process though). | |http://www.courier-mta.org/ = I've used courier-imap for a few years on one of my servers. I like it because of the dedication to implementing standards and that I don't see stupid security mistakes in it.
