Jeroen van Aart wrote: > Wouter Verhelst wrote: > >> It is properly supported by exim upstream, and the recommended course of >> action in case you need a clustered setup. Exim deals correctly with the > > There are those, enough of them, who disagree. As I said countless > discussions can be found, like this one: > http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-uw/2007-September/001574.html > >> multiple quirks that are part of the NFS protocol, such as certain >> locking mechanisms not working (exim uses the one that does work on >> NFS), the fact that the filesystem may not be available when exim tries >> to write to disk (in which case exim will delay delivery, or return a >> 4xx response depending on what file it wants to write), and the fact >> that multiple queue runners may be active at the same time (which is not >> a problem even if you do it on the same host). >> >> Exim does not 'sort of' work with NFS. Exim works great with NFS. Even >> if you want to write to mboxes over NFS, exim will not corrupt them >> provided you set your transport up to use lock files rather than flock > > I am sorry but you perfectly point out why NFS would be a bad idea. It > requires exim to work around NFS' flaws instead of just working, like > when it'd access a real filesystem. How can you say exim works great > with NFS if you have to set up your transport to use lock files rather > than flock, or else files may become corrupted. That to me sounds like > it does NOT work great, but works sort of, if you're careful and avoid > the problems. > > In that same line of thought qmail works great IF you apply the 600 or > so patches it needs to actually turn it into something resembling an MTA.
Hey, Yahoo! use qmail. How bad can it be?? -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
