Qmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [djb@koobera.math.uic.edu: qmail 1.00 available]

To: qmail <qmail@list.cr.yp.to>
Subject: Re: [djb@koobera.math.uic.edu: qmail 1.00 available]
From: Sasa Ugrenovic <sasa@admin-networks.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:59:33 +0100
Delivered-to: sp-com-lists@consult.net
Delivered-to: gmail-qmail@securepoint.com
Delivered-to: sp.com.list@gmail.com
Delivered-to: mailing list qmail@list.cr.yp.to
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702220835550.20931@distort.dyndns.org>
Mailing-list: contact qmail-help@list.cr.yp.to; run by ezmlm
Organization: Admin-Networks.org
References: <20070222042303.GA74985@lizzy.catnook.local> <20070222140051.76cdabb9.sasa@admin-networks.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702220835550.20931@distort.dyndns.org>
My needs are the needs of every mail(or other) server admin... who want's to 
have efficient mail server.

RCPT TO checks, other helo checks, greylisting, smtp auth, mysql/ldap ... and 
the list goes on.

I don't need any "special" features, I need the server which will be fast, 
secure and feature full.. so I can without too much hassle configure SMTP to 
use all features written above. - Efficient.

I mentioned MX proccessor... that's a server which proccess mail for around 30 
domains.
14:42:19 up 133 days, 20:54,  2 users,  load average: 0.09, 0.05, 0.01

That server have around 150 connections constantly... around 5-10 
connections/sec.
The one domain hosted there was on qmail, the server load was around 6-7 .. all 
the time. Million bounces and shit..queue was constantly full of spam, etc.. 
I know this can be resolved.. with those patches, but what's the point ?

Few of my friends who work/own some providers here, switched from qmail because 
it became a nightmare to administer it. (They have around 100K of mail users / 
ldap).

Kind Regards,
Sasa

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:38:46 -0500 (EST)
brian@highstream.kicks-ass.org wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Sasa Ugrenovic wrote:
> 
> > Ok .. i have a question.
> >
> > Is qmail usable ? I used qmail for 5 years before I switched to postfix.
> > I hope DJB reads this, because qmail is obsolete... you have to apply a 
> > million patches (which have backward compatibility issues) to have a decent 
> > functional SMTP.
> > Greylisting, helo checks, blabla ..
> 
> your definition of "functional SMTP" is skewed by your (perceived) needs.
> 
> 
> brian
> --
> Never be afraid to tell the world who you are.
>               -- Anonymous
>   19:05:01 up 6 days,  1:20,  8 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.09, 0.12

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>