Subject: Re: QMAIL VS. SENDMAIL
To: Matthew Chapman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Sean Witham <Sean.Witham@asa.co.uk>
Date: 04/21/1998 19:42:16
You may want to look at Exim. It drops in and replaces sendmail with
little or no problems (I haven't come accross any myself yet), is
feature rich and runs mcuh faster than sendmail. Its way ahead of
sendmail (and many would say qmail) when it comes to anti-spam
features. Its not as addvanced as sendmail with reguard to ESMTP
features. Virtual domain support is good and it used by a lot of ISP's
including psi and demon.
Other plusses include its very extensive reference manual which is
often declared one of the best for any software. Its easy to configure
(note you will have to set some defaults before you use it in place of
sendmail), and the very impressive support it receives on its mailling
list (it has a web page). Questions are often answered in less
than an hour after hitting the email list and Philip Hazell (the
author) has requently supplied a patch within hours of a problem
hitting a list. Philip often introduces new features to meet requests
on the list.
One restriction is that Exim is complete SMTP/internet orientated
if you want to support uucp feeds you have to use its pipe features.
Despite this many people use it to support uucp as well.
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Matthew Chapman wrote:
> Not to start a flame war but I would like to know anyones opinion on
> running qmail as opposed to sendmail particularly on a Netbsd machine
> that will be running virtual hosts.?
> thanks in advance and once again I hope this does not start a flame but
> rather a discussion. I am used to running sendmail for my machines but
> have heard good things about qmail...
> Matthew Chapman