Re: Ideal mail server: qmail or postfix
From: Peter McGarvey (fbsd-x_at_packet.org.uk)
Date: 07/22/03
- Previous message: Schalk Erasmus: "Re: hi"
- In reply to: James Godwin: "Ideal mail server: qmail or postfix"
- Next in thread: Chris Shenton: "Re: Ideal mail server: qmail or postfix"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 08:46:22 +0100 To: James Godwin <james@organicwire.net>
* James Godwin <james@organicwire.net> [2003-07-21 22:09:16 BST]:
> Hi,
>
> We are building small server solution for our clients which run a number of
> services and we are looking at incorporating mail server services.
>
> As a hosting provider we manage their web and email services. Our boxes were
> configured with Sendmail and we have had no need to change. No need fixing
> something which is not broken. :) basically have not had the time to change.
>
> As our company grew we became more familiar with running BSD and aware of
> other alternatives.
>
> I was wondering what mail servers fellow ISP are running. I can't decide
> between postfix or qmail.
>
> Any advantages or disadvantages would be greatly appreciated.
Well, I've worked for 2 ISPs and a University. All of whom ran Exim.
My current employer is an ISP which is an amalgam of 4 smaller
companies. One used Exim, one Sendmail, one Qmail, and the fourth ran
on Windose (which I'll mention no more as there is no excuse for that
sort of language <g>). We've finally managed to combine the Unix mail
systems onto a single platform, but before we did so I was often called
upon them to administer them all at one time or the other.
The Sendmail based systems were flaky, and an absolute nightmare to
administer. The system never ran particularly well.
The Qmail system was fairly robust. But Administration was also a PITA.
Cleaning up after a spam attack always proved to be a bit of a bloack
art. Owing to a batch of bad disks, I had the joy of rebuilding the
systems on several occasions... it really was nasty - although most of
this was down to a "pop before smtp" hack.
And the Exim system are so easy to handle. A single, text, config file.
Easy to understand spool layout. Real easy to administer. A positive
delight. Which is why the Exim platform was chosen to be the standard
platform.
Both Sendmail and Exim are SMTP only, whereas qmail is a complete mail
suite. So if you did pick Exim you'd also need a POP3 daemon etc. etc.
Amusingly we've started to use the qmail pop daemon as the previous
daemon was possible the most horrible piece of software I've ever seen,
but then it didn't just do POP.
But my overwhelming impression of all the mail platforms I've seen is
that the software contributes less than 50% to making a mail platform a
sucess. It's the setup of the machines, resiliency, scalability,
location of the mailstore, clarity of DNS names, etc. etc. that have
more to do with success than the software you choose.
So my advice. Stick with what you know. Keep it simple. And, dare I
say it, some documentation for those who come after....
>
> Kind regards,
>
> James
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-isp@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-isp
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-isp-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
-- TTFN, FNORD Peter McGarvey Freelance FreeBSD Hacker (will work for bandwidth) _______________________________________________ freebsd-isp@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-isp To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-isp-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Schalk Erasmus: "Re: hi"
- In reply to: James Godwin: "Ideal mail server: qmail or postfix"
- Next in thread: Chris Shenton: "Re: Ideal mail server: qmail or postfix"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
