On 15 Jun 1997, Rob Browning wrote: > Alexander Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > (I'd vote for exim if uucp is guaranteed to work) > > Ok, so what are the arguments for exim over qmail (at least why do you > prefer it?) > > I've heard arguments for qmail and exim over sendmail.
qmail is supposed to be more secure. Theoretically, exim's design allegedly means there might be some security issues, but none have been found yet. There has been argument about this ad nauseam on the exim-users mailing list. My own feeling is that the primary disadvantage with qmail is that Dan decided that sendmail was awful (with some justification) and proceeded to change a lot of things whether they needed it or not. I am, for example, irritated that qmail's forwarding file is called .qmail. What was the point of that? Does changing the name from .forward to .qmail really improve security? The bottom result of changes like this is that qmail is not a drop-in replacement for sendmail or smail. Exim is; it has a sophisticated .forward syntax of its own, but it does understand pretty well any .forward for smail or sendmail. qmail does not understand anything but the most simple cases. This means that if you have a lot of users on your machine (probably not the case for most debian sites, but it's an issue as far as I'm concerned) you will have to re-educate them as to the new ways of qmail (once you'v re-educated yourself as well, of course). To be quite honest, my 1,300 users have taken a long time gwtting used to how the standard UNIX mail system works, and they don't want to waste time learning a new one. For a single user system of course this is not a problem. Tim. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- T J R Cutts Tel: +44 1223 333596 Dept. of Biochemistry, Tennis Court Rd., Fax: +44 1223 766002 Cambridge, CB2 1QW, UK -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
