On 24 Apr 1998 04:17:57 +0200  Tobias Brox wrote:

> I have some postmaster experience here. I sort of liked some of the
> features in qmail, so I decided to go for it. But I wasn't really
> satisfied - didn't manage to integrate the old /etc/aliases-file
> well,

Bernstein's "qsmac" /etc/aliases add-on has been enhanced recently.
I didn't pay much attention to the change, but there was one
compatibility fix.  (http://www.pobox.com/~djb)

> I'm thinking of setting up some virtual hosts, I'd daresay it's
> possible through qmail as well, but I'd like to completely separate
> the virtual hosts ... i.e., if the MX record for my.virtual.net is set
> to my.mail.server, I may have a user dude@my.virtual.net, but
> dude@my.mail.server shouldn't automaticly be a valid email.

Trivial.  qmail's virtual domain support is vastly superior to
sendmail's.  So much better I'd use the term "sane" to describe it.  I
am yet to see a virtual domain setup in sendmail that works correctly.

> Perhaps the biggest advantage with qmail is the flexibility it gives
> ordinary users, they may set up miscellaneous filtering (without using
> procmail) - even though this isn't documented in the dot-qmail man
> page, they may set up any mail address/mail folder at the form
> "logname-*" and even their own mailing lists / mailing aliases.

This stuff is documented, but you have to read all the manual pages
a couple of times to fit it together.  Still less bother than shelling
out for the sendmail book.

> The sendmail offers even more flexibility ... if you're a sendmail
> wizard. But it comes along with the standard NetBSD 1.3 distribution
> and is ready to run without any configuration at all. :)

I'd disagree with this.  Sendmail includes facilities for re-writing
mail headers.  qmail supports this by delivering the mail to a program
(any program, any language) that does what it wants and re-submits the
mail.

If "flexibility" is taken to mean more than header re-writing, qmail
wins hands down.

Regards,

Giles