| |||||||||||||
qmail's *too* simpleqmail's *too* simplePosted Aug 31, 2006 17:16 UTC (Thu) by smurf (subscriber, #17840)In reply to: sendmail easier than qmail? by pkolloch Parent article: A comparison of Mail Transfer Agents - Part Two
Sure, qmail is very easy to understand, but that's partly because it just can't do most of the stuff I'd want to have in a reasonable mailer. (And no, adding the exact same line to 1000+ .qmail-FOO files doesn't help WRT "reasonable".)
I happen to like Exim's configuration syntax. It's reasonably clear, has sensible defaults, the documentation is understandable and seems to be complete, and it has a filter language with a rich-enough syntax that actually makes sense (as opposed to qmail's, which doesn't really do anything except distinguish program exit codes -- or things like procmail, which are frankly dangerous).
The only serious gripe I have about Exim is that AFAIK it *still* cannot encapsulate bounce emails in MIME. If you get a bounce from an Exim mailer because you mistyped an address, extracting the thing and re-sending it is a nontrivial exercise. With MIME and a MIME-enabled mailer, this becomes child's play by comparison -- at least with mutt. ;-)
I don't know how the other mailers handle this.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||