Re: [gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail

2006-08-01 Thread Bryan Whitehead
Anyway - I stand to what I wrote. I'd suggest any MTA, *BESIDES* qmail and sendmail. qmail, as it's too buggy, too few features and too "complicated". sendmail, as the configuration is a nightmare (compared to easier systems available nowadays). I object to this statement. Sendmail is a solid MT

Re: [gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail

2006-07-31 Thread Michael Crute
On 7/31/06, Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not here to start a war over the merits of any one MTA... but I > think it's worth reading DJBs rebuttal of the accusations made by > Postfix's author. Well, that page that I quoted from is NOT from the Postfix author. It's from somebo

Re: [gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail

2006-07-31 Thread Alexander Skwar
Michael Crute schrieb: On 7/31/06, Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Michael Crute wrote: > On 7/31/06, Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Suranga Kasthuriarachchi wrote: >> > Which is the best for organization mail server. >> >> NOT qmail - too many holes and not good perfo

Re: [gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail

2006-07-31 Thread kashani
Alexander Skwar wrote: Suranga Kasthuriarachchi wrote: Which is the best for organization mail server. NOT qmail - too many holes and not good performancewise. Some clarification on the security of qmail: qmail has no known holes be default other than still playing the MTA game by 1998

Re: [gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail

2006-07-31 Thread Michael Crute
On 7/31/06, Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Michael Crute wrote: > On 7/31/06, Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Suranga Kasthuriarachchi wrote: >> > Which is the best for organization mail server. >> >> NOT qmail - too many holes and not good performancewise. > I would b

Re: [gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail

2006-07-31 Thread Alexander Skwar
Michael Crute wrote: > On 7/31/06, Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Suranga Kasthuriarachchi wrote: >> > Which is the best for organization mail server. >> >> NOT qmail - too many holes and not good performancewise. > I would beg to differ with the statement about security. Qmail is

Re: [gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail

2006-07-31 Thread Ronald Vincent Vazquez
On Mon, July 31, 2006 8:28 am, Alexander Skwar wrote: > Suranga Kasthuriarachchi wrote: > >> Which is the best for organization mail server. > > NOT qmail - too many holes and not good performancewise. > sendmail has had numerous holes "way back then". And I > dislike the configuration "language".

Re: [gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail

2006-07-31 Thread Jonathan Wright
Michael Crute wrote: I would beg to differ with the statement about security. Qmail is arguably THE MOST secure mail server (http://cr.yp.to/qmail/guarantee.html). It may be 'secure' from that respect, but not from any other. In it's default settings, it's far too accepting and is a pain to cl

Re: [gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail

2006-07-31 Thread Michael Crute
On 7/31/06, Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Suranga Kasthuriarachchi wrote: > Which is the best for organization mail server. NOT qmail - too many holes and not good performancewise. sendmail has had numerous holes "way back then". And I dislike the configuration "language". So, I'd

Re: [gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail

2006-07-31 Thread Alexander Skwar
Suranga Kasthuriarachchi wrote: > Which is the best for organization mail server. NOT qmail - too many holes and not good performancewise. sendmail has had numerous holes "way back then". And I dislike the configuration "language". So, I'd suggest postfix or exim. I personally use Postfix always

[gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail

2006-07-30 Thread Suranga Kasthuriarachchi
Dear All,Which is the best for organization mail server.Thanks & rgds.Suranga