RFC from the list
dougslist at semig.com
Sat Jan 20 22:39:04 PST 2001
Regarding qmail, I don't understand why anyone would claim it's
anti-unix-like. It's as complex as any given unix command (if not moreso)
and on some days it can be just about as intimidating as sed or awk.
Perhaps even more complex since it's implemented as a whole slew of programs!
I absolutely love qmail. If I didn't need sendmail on my network to queue
mail for one of my customers who uses (arrgh!) Microsoft(R)(TM)
Exchange(C)(RSVP)(PAT PEND), there'd be no sendmail (or sendmail
equivalent) on my network anywhere.
Although I currently use ISC's BIND, the same guy who wrote qmail also
wrote a DNS server (djbdns). I was going to switch over to it last year
but got involved in way too many other projects to give what I want to do
any time. Maybe I'll get some time this year, I hope.
The #1 advantage for using software by Dan Bernstein instead of their more
common counterparts is, of course, security. I'd love to be totally free
of the sendmail and BIND security treadmills!
At 10:29 PM 1/20/01 -0500, Jesse Tie Ten Quee wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 02:45:50PM -0500, Jason Gurtz wrote:
>> Apache is also obvious. It is well proven and fills all my needs.
>> a little tougher; my conservative side says just use sendmail.
... snip ...
>And i have heard great things about qmail, i haven't had the time to
>really test it..but from what i've seen it's very "anti-unix" like,
>which is why i'll problably not like it, but one never knows untill they
>do try ;)
>> Then there is the matter of DNS. I will be running BIND, but I'm
>> wondering to go with the tried and true 8.2.2PL7 or go with the new 9.0.0
>> What does bcpub use for DNS servers. That is probably what I would go
... snip ...
Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-apps-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message
More information about the blfs-support