| |||||||||||||
A comparison of Mail Transfer Agents - Part OneA comparison of Mail Transfer Agents - Part OnePosted Aug 24, 2006 9:47 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670)Parent article: A comparison of Mail Transfer Agents - Part One
qmail may be "ready" in the author's view, but that hasn't stopped the community from developing it further. Apart from the mentioned netqmail, there is also several swap-in components to take care of spam and virus filtering for example. qmail is very modular and it is easy to do this.
There is also qpsmtpd, which technically may be counted as anohter MTA, but which fits in nicely with the rest of qmail and is extremely flexible. It is written in Perl, performance is good enough on modern hardware.
I think you are being unfair to DJB, "wrong" is harsh. Yes, there is a problem, but not with the recommended configuration. He may be smug but the code is excellent. I wish all software was nearly as secure.
(Log in to post comments)
A comparison of Mail Transfer Agents - Part One Posted Aug 24, 2006 11:42 UTC (Thu) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link] "Nobody gives gigabytes of memory to each qmail-smtpd process" is a falsifiable statement. If it turns out to be false, will DJB pay out the $500?
A comparison of Mail Transfer Agents - Part One Posted Sep 5, 2006 13:19 UTC (Tue) by job (guest, #670) [Link] I think the problem has to be in the default configuration. DJB neverclaimed that it was impossible to set up qmail insecurely if you really wanted to. You can even use it as an open relay if you want.
|
|||||||||||||