From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1G7cX4-00035C-49 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:30:26 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k6VIQuuS010683; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:26:56 GMT Received: from hetzner.email-server.info (new.email-server.info [213.133.109.44]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k6VIO6Tj022159 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:24:06 GMT Received: by hetzner.email-server.info (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 270C536FE0; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:26:23 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Tests: AWL=-1.679,BAYES_00=-2.599,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=2.046, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.456 X-Spam-Contact: Contact Address X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3-gr1 (2006-06-01) on hetzner.email-server.info X-Spam-Relays: Trusted=, Untrusted=[ ip=88.130.101.167 rdns=mue-88-130-101-167.dsl.tropolys.de helo=!192.168.1.244! by=hetzner.email-server.info ident= envfrom= intl=0 id=78E6E36D8E auth= ] X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Bayes: Score=0.0000, Tokens=Tokens: new, 43; hammy, 125; neutral, 80; spammy, 17., Hammy=0.000-+--schrieb, 0.000-+--H*M:mid, 0.000-+--H*r:sk:mue-88-, 0.000-+--H*RU:sk:mue-88-, 0.000-+--H*p:U*listen, Spammy=0.978-2--favorable, 0.976-+--awarded, 0.958-1--nightmare, 0.952-4--holes, 0.950-+--offer X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=no version=3.1.3-gr1 X-Spam-Externals: DCC Brand "_DCCB_", Result _DCCR_ - Pyzor=_PYZOR_, RBL [127.0.0.10, 127.0.0.7] Received: from [192.168.1.244] (mue-88-130-101-167.dsl.tropolys.de [88.130.101.167]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hetzner.email-server.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78E6E36D8E for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:26:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <44CE4ABA.6040200@mid.email-server.info> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:23:54 +0200 From: Alexander Skwar User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060728) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] netqmail and qmail References: <217e6afb0607302300j313a56fh66a9e7f1815a91e4@mail.gmail.com> <44CDF760.9060507@mid.message-center.info> <558b73fb0607310608j6482bbfbre28adef65f32099b@mail.gmail.com> <44CE11E6.3050406@mid.message-center.info> <558b73fb0607310852x2d6cb55cw91568899dc00a6da@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <558b73fb0607310852x2d6cb55cw91568899dc00a6da@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 07117549-e531-49ce-a1b9-7dab2f968dc0 X-Archives-Hash: 1aee07a04e92c7d5b98f73a2e133e80c Michael Crute schrieb: > On 7/31/06, Alexander Skwar wrote: >> Michael Crute wrote: >> > On 7/31/06, Alexander Skwar wrote: >> >> Suranga Kasthuriarachchi wrote: >> >> >> > Which is the best for organization mail server. >> >> >> >> NOT qmail - too many holes and not good performancewise. >> >> > I would beg to differ with the statement about security. Qmail is >> > arguably THE MOST secure mail server >> > (http://cr.yp.to/qmail/guarantee.html). >> >> Actually, it is NOT. DJB made this statement but he doesn't >> stand to it. See http://home.pages.de/~mandree/qmail-bugs.html >> for a quite big collection of bugs and RFC violations of qmail. >> >> To quote from that page: > > > I'm not here to start a war over the merits of any one MTA... but I > think it's worth reading DJBs rebuttal of the accusations made by > Postfix's author. Well, that page that I quoted from is NOT from the Postfix author. It's from somebody else. Also, the page you mentioned is from no later than 1998, it seems. My page was from 2006 (!), so it really seems as if nothing has been changed in qmail in 8 years! Not really convincing, if you ask me. Finally, the 500$ offer isn't worth anything, as it's not awarded, although it should've been. And in closing, I'd like to just add, that the personality of DJB also doesn't make qmail or his software favorable to me. Anyway - I stand to what I wrote. I'd suggest any MTA, *BESIDES* qmail and sendmail. qmail, as it's too buggy, too few features and too "complicated". sendmail, as the configuration is a nightmare (compared to easier systems available nowadays). Alexander Skwar -- "Professional certification for car people may sound like an oxymoron." -The Wall Street Journal, page B1, Tuesday, July 17, 1990. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list