Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: discussion: October 2001:
[aclug-L] Re: MTAs & maildir vs mbox (was Re: Virtual POP3 and IMAP serv

[aclug-L] Re: MTAs & maildir vs mbox (was Re: Virtual POP3 and IMAP serv

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: discussion@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aclug-L] Re: MTAs & maildir vs mbox (was Re: Virtual POP3 and IMAP server)
From: Jonathan Hall <jonhall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:31:38 -0500
Reply-to: discussion@xxxxxxxxx

I really like sendmail... I really hate qmail.

But that's just a matter of persional preference.

I had considered a few other MTAs, but decided to stick with sendmail b/c
it's been around so long, and thus is quite secure (contrary to the popular
belief that the old "gaping" security holes still exist--any program that's
been around as long as sendmail is going to have security holes... most
people forget that they don't exist any more :P)

I did try to configure qmail once before, and despised it.

However, I do need an MTA who's abilities (and not ease/enjoyment of
configuration) match my needs.

What can other people who like or dislike qmail (or other MTAs) add to this

Things I need my MTA to support:
* Virtual hosting (like, duh) and virtualusertable support
* Message size limits, preferably based on the sender's IP address (i.e.
  someone sending a mail from 192.168.x.x has a 1mb size limit, while
  someone sending from a 209.134.x.x address has a 10mb size limit) Perhaps
  this could be implimened using procmail or similar, rather than the MTA
* Filtering abilities (something that can quite easily be handed off to
  procmail or another similar program)
* SSL support
* Ability to allow relaying from specific hosts *OR* after authenticating--I
  want the user to have the ability to relay through my mail server IF they
  authenticate first (does this require SSL?)

Another question I have is maildir vs. mbox?  I'd discussed this with some
others, and came to the conclusion that mbox would be more efficient for me
since 99% of my users will dowload their mail w/ POP3, then delete it.  mbox
uses far fewer inodes... and sequential messsage access should be much
faster for mbox over maildir... right?

Right now I have ~200 users... but want to be as scalable as possible.

I'm also not opposed to encouraging my customers to swich to IMAP if there
is a good reason to.  I suspect POP3 is considered better in most instances
b/c overall bandiwdth usage is less, and b/c it doesn't continually use disk
real estate on the server.  Is my thinking sound?

On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 08:14:16AM -0500, Ryan Hunt wrote:
> > * Must work with sendmail (Unless you can somehow amazingly convince me
> that
> >   some other MTA is better for my application)
> Ive used QMail for years and I believe its far superior to Sendmail in every
> conseivable way, its secure, fast, stable. When compared to sendmail's
> bloated, insecure, slow and semi-stable history its no supprise like XOOM,
> Yahoo, Lycos and other high volume email servers have been using qmail for
> years..
> It is a bit daunting the first time you set it up and it will require alot
> of work but once you have it all setup you can do it over and over again if
> needed...
> Qmail > Sendmail
> -Ryan
> -- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
> visit

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  Jonathan Hall  *  jonhall@xxxxxxxxxxxx  *  PGP public key available
 Systems Admin, Future Internet Services; Goessel, KS * (620) 367-2487  *  PGP Key ID: FE 00 FD 51
                  -=  Running Debian GNU/Linux  =-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]