Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > No, actually the question is whether it's worth Debian's time to maintain > it, distribute it, and support it. qmail is one of the few pieces > of software I've ever seen that is so poorly written that it's author > recommends running it under a supervisor because it can't stay running > on it's own.
I'm not a fan of qmail either, but but this just isn't true. djb advocates running *everything* under a supervisor process to eliminate what he sees as one possible type of failure, not because of any specific problems with qmail. I've run qmail for years and I've never seen the supervisor process have to do anything. It runs as reliably as a daemon as any other MTA. I'm switching away from it everywhere for other reasons, most notably its horrible behavior with spam reflection, but stability is *not* a problem for qmail. > It also doesn't support most useful features any reasonable MTA can be > expected to support without fairly extensive patching. This is generally true. > So, right, the argument we're left with is, it's quick and it doesn't > have many apparent security flaws. And it's not particularly quick. It used to be, but qmail development has been stalled for years, and since then other MTA systems such as Postfix have caught up. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
