I am in the process of choosing between postfix and qmail for our mail relays. I've not decided yet. However, I am surprised by the fact that many people who prefer postfix, also enjoy posting unqualified[0] statements[1][2][3] about qmail.
If anyone have properly grounded views, please share! For example, I'd like comments on http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/postfix.html and http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/qmail.html [0] A _qualified_ statement would e.g. be "qmail is trivially DoS'ed by sending emails with no subject at a rate of 2 per second". Typical unqualified statements are shown below. [1] Michael Loftis wrote (about qmail): > First is, unless they've made design changes, > it's trivial to DoS. Really? How would you DoS qmail? Could the same attack be used to DoS postfix? [2] Michael Loftis also wrote (about qmail): > Second, it doesn't scale so well, but unless > you're talking upwards of about 3-5k/msgs/hr > you might not run into it. Really? Quoting Bernstein quoting Bill Weinman (cr.yp.to/qmail/users.html): "Our busiest list is about 250 messages X 1800 subscribers (avg mail deliveries: 450,000 transactions per day). Sendmail was barfing badly on this, and qmail seems to be doing real well. The machine is a Pentium 90 running Linux 2.0.13 with 64Mb of RAM. I have the spawn limit set at 100. I am *very* impressed." How was the qmail that didn't scale well configured? On what hardware? [3] Craig Sanders wrote: > ps: qmail is a bad idea. postfix is better. Your conclusion may be right, but the arguments are missing. Would you please share? Thanks, :) Bjornar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
