What to use for mail server ??

Taking care of your Linux box.

What to use for mail server ??

Postby keshif » Sun Feb 15, 2004 5:12 pm

AOA

I think this is better to ask or at least get opinion about what to use as a mail server either of these !) Sendmail !!) Qmail !!!) PostFix as an Smtp server ....... and wat to use as a pop3 server

1) i have 20 clients in my office
2) i m shifting from mDeamon from window$

Listen every one -- But do only yours ......... thats y i asked ... :wink:

AH
kEsHiF
Thinking !! Thinking !! Still Confused !! What i m Trying To Think !!
!! Idea -- Lih-nux -- Live in Different Style ;) !!
keshif
Naik
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 8:49 am
WLM: keshif@hotmail.com
Yahoo Messenger: keshifz@yahoo.com
Location: Karachi

Re:

Postby LinuxFreaK » Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:38 pm

Dear keshif,
Salam,

Go for PostFix and also Check Red Hat Postfix HOWTO. Another Option is to use Qmail and also check Qmail Howto

Best Regards.
Farrukh Ahmed
LinuxFreaK
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5132
Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 10:24 am
ICQ: 82075802
Website: http://www.linuxpakistan.net/wiki/index.php?pagename=LinuxFreak
WLM: f4fahmed@hotmail.com
Yahoo Messenger: f4fahmed@yahoo.com
AOL: linuxpakistan@aol.com
Location: Karachi

Postby farhantoqeer » Sun Feb 15, 2004 9:03 pm

you can use xmail.
http://www.xmailserver.com
A: Yes
Q: Is top-posting bad?
farhantoqeer
Major General
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 5:45 pm
Website: http://www.emergen.biz
Location: Karachi

Postby fawad » Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:49 am

My vote's for Postfix as well. It's the perfect balance between the terse but powerful Sendmail and the high performance qmail. Sendmail is ubiquitous to a large degree, but it fundamentally br0ke (monolithic architecture, etc.). qmail is very neat, but is not OSS and has config files scattered all over the place and is headed by DJB. exim is otherwise very powerful, but is monolithic like sendmail.
fawad
Site Admin
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 8:00 pm
ICQ: 17672437
Website: http://www.fawad.net
WLM: fawadhalim@hotmail.com
Yahoo Messenger: fawad2048
AOL: fawadhalim
Location: Addison, IL

Postby lambda » Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 pm

fawad wrote:qmail is very neat, but is not OSS and has config files scattered all over the place and is headed by DJB.


there is a lot of fud about qmail here. first of all, it's not oss as defined by the open source foundation, but you get access to all the source, you can make whatever changes you want, you can install any patches you want. no one stops you from making local changes or redistributing them.

it doesn't have config files scattered all over the place; it has them in one directory. other applications you use with it might store their config files in different places, but qmail stores all its config files in one area: /var/qmail.

and, so what if it's "headed by DJB"? does that automatically make it suspect? when was the last time you saw a security hole in any of djb's applications?
lambda
Major General
 
Posts: 3452
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 7:04 pm
Website: http://www.hungry.com/~fn/
Location: Lahore

Postby zaeemarshad » Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:32 pm

hey fawad,
i am sure that you have no grudges with Mr. Bernstein. He has been writing neat software for ages man. your comment brought smiles on my face. Qmail is neat but for 20 clients thats an overkill keshif. Gofor postfix or exim. If you are using redhat 8 or 9 then you will get out of the box configured sendmail and postfix. just a bit of tweaking required and they work fine. it wont make any special difference when talking about 20 clients mail load.

Cheers
Zaeem
zaeemarshad
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 12:35 pm
Website: http://zaeem.no-ip.org
WLM: zarshadvirk@hotmail.com
Yahoo Messenger: negativecreep61@yahoo.com
AOL: zarshadvirk
Location: Islamabad

Postby fawad » Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:53 pm

aoa lambda,
The OSS definition says that you should be able to make changes to the app and be able to distribute the resulting app. DJB's license actually does stop me from distributing changes. If I want to distribute changes, my client has to take qmail from the pristine source and apply my changes using my patch. I am not allowed to distribute a superset. I can't make binary packages that deviate even slightly from djb's install script either. So if you don't want to create /package and don't want your binaries residing in /var/qmail, you have to build from source. There's a reason why the timestamp on the latest release (1.03) is from 6/14/1998. Also, there is a reason why no big Linux distro ships with qmail (I might be wrong on this).

I guess I misstated the qmail config problem. You have to forgive me since it's been 3 years since I used qmail so my memory is fuzzy. The fact remains, however that different parameters get dropped into different config files. That may or may not be a bad thing depending on who you talk to.


Please read the thread at openbsd-list to see why I try to avoid DJB's software despite it being of the highest quality. Wietse Venema (creator of Postfix) by comparison is a perfect gentleman in any discussion thread you'll see on the internet. I don't know about you, but I prefer my Free Software leaders to be receptive to ideas and admit they are wrong when they are. My way or the highway is not a good trait in a coder.

That said, no zaeemarshad, I don't have any grudge against DJB. Just wanted to point out some facts. What software you choose to use is your choice. I used to use DJB on every box I owned till I got to Postfix. Now my mailer pick goes as follows:

1. Postfix
2. Exim
3. qmail

Regards
-fawad
fawad
Site Admin
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 8:00 pm
ICQ: 17672437
Website: http://www.fawad.net
WLM: fawadhalim@hotmail.com
Yahoo Messenger: fawad2048
AOL: fawadhalim
Location: Addison, IL

Postby jargon » Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:48 am

Cool , never knew about this DJB character, he sounds like a 'bad' man after reading his email reply. :)
jargon
jargon
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 691
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 9:40 am

Postby mahin » Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:08 am

I would not call DJB a bad man ratherr it is just that he has a view with which majority does not agree. He is what you call "Pepal " [ Bunyan ] Tree huge and majestic, one can enjoy all its benefits but nothing grows under it.
mahin
Major
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 8:00 pm
Website: http://www.linuxpakistan.net/wiki/index.php/LinuxPakistanKarachi
Location: Karachi

Postby kashif » Tue Feb 17, 2004 1:47 pm

my vote is for Sendmail

we are using in ISP in Lahore.

And very happy with that.
**********************************************

As-Salaatu was-Salaamu Alaika Ya Sayyidi Ya Rasool ALLAH

**********************************************
kashif
Naib Subedar
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 2:44 am
Location: Okara

Postby lambda » Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:44 pm

fawad wrote:aoa lambda,
The OSS definition says that you should be able to make changes to the app and be able to distribute the resulting app. DJB's license actually does stop me from distributing changes.


djb doesn't provide a license with any of his software. instead, he points to copyright law.

If I want to distribute changes, my client has to take qmail from the pristine source and apply my changes using my patch. I am not allowed to distribute a superset.


if you can distribute patches (which he doesn't stop you from doing), you can distribute changes. what you can't do is put out a package with your changes and call it qmail. to get around your problem in a user-friendly way, you can distribute a tar file with your patches, a script, and qmail-1.03.tar.gz. that's allowed.

remember -- all these 'restrictions' are what copyright law says you can or can't do. not a license. if you have a problem with them, take them up with your lawmakers.

I can't make binary packages that deviate even slightly from djb's install script either. So if you don't want to create /package and don't want your binaries residing in /var/qmail, you have to build from source.


the above packaging system with an unaltered copy of qmail's sources and a script solves that problem.

There's a reason why the timestamp on the latest release (1.03) is from 6/14/1998.


and what would that be?

The fact remains, however that different parameters get dropped into different config files. That may or may not be a bad thing depending on who you talk to.


no mailer out there, not even sendmail, stuffs all config parameters in one file.

Please read the thread at openbsd-list to see why I try to avoid DJB's software despite it being of the highest quality.


there's no doubt that djb evokes extreme reactions.
lambda
Major General
 
Posts: 3452
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 7:04 pm
Website: http://www.hungry.com/~fn/
Location: Lahore

Postby fawad » Tue Feb 17, 2004 9:22 pm

AOA,
I won't bother arguing about the licensing issue as IANAL. Suffices to say that personally, if a license is not OSI compliant, I don't consider it Open Source.
if you can distribute patches (which he doesn't stop you from doing), you can distribute changes. what you can't do is put out a package with your changes and call it qmail. to get around your problem in a user-friendly way, you can distribute a tar file with your patches, a script, and qmail-1.03.tar.gz. that's allowed.

I submit to you that while this might work for you and I, it's definitely not a way distro publishers want to manage their packages. Let's say that Redhat wants to distribute qmail. Do you think they should put a dependency on gcc, glibc-devel, diffutils etc. (I think djb doesn't believe in libc's, so feel free to drop that one from the list)? I just want a mailer? I quote from DJB's distributors page:

    You may distribute a precompiled package if
  • installing your package produces exactly the same files, in exactly the same locations, that a user would obtain by installing one of my packages listed above;
  • your package behaves correctly, i.e., the same way as normal installations of my package on all other systems; and
  • your package's creator warrants that he has made a good-faith attempt to ensure that your package behaves correctly.

In short, it only makes sense to distribute DJB's packages if either
  • You've got a source based packaging system (FreeBSD, Gentoo, etc.)
  • or you're willing to put up with whatever structure DJB's install scripts impose on you

There's a reason why the timestamp on the latest release (1.03) is from 6/14/1998.

and what would that be?

That's because of DJB's attitude towards others. He has an attitude of putting off people because he has a superiority complex of sorts where 'it's the right way because I did it that way'. Take for example the qmail SMTP delivery behavior (related discussion here). qmail insists on starting a new connection for each recipient even though multiple recipients might reside on the same domain. DJB is ok with breaking RFCs just because his way is supposed to be better. Contrast that with the postfix changelog. While qmail has remained stagnant, postfix is constantly improving.

no mailer out there, not even sendmail, stuffs all config parameters in one file.

Like I said, the preference of multiple tiny files vs. one big file is highly objective.

Regards
fawad
Site Admin
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 8:00 pm
ICQ: 17672437
Website: http://www.fawad.net
WLM: fawadhalim@hotmail.com
Yahoo Messenger: fawad2048
AOL: fawadhalim
Location: Addison, IL

Postby lambda » Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:30 am

fawad wrote:I submit to you that while this might work for you and I, it's definitely not a way distro publishers want to manage their packages.


if you look closely through freebsd's ports makefiles, you'll see a lot of packages marked that can't be redistributed as binaries, or placed on freebsd cdroms. there are also lots of stuff you won't see distributed with redhat, either (note the recent change w.r.t mp3s). given that, it's no biggie.

That's because of DJB's attitude towards others. He has an attitude of putting off people because he has a superiority complex of sorts where 'it's the right way because I did it that way'.


everyone has a superiority complex if they set out to write a different, "better" software application to do something, where other apps already exist to handle that problem space. but no, that's not why qmail hasn't been updated. it hasn't changed because, give or take rfc 2822, it's good enough.

Take for example the qmail SMTP delivery behavior (related discussion here). qmail insists on starting a new connection for each recipient even though multiple recipients might reside on the same domain.


yes, it does that. is that a problem? as an exercise, you have access to all the email addresses for users signed up here. sort them by domain, and count the number of domains. if you were to send mail to every user here, do you really think anyone will be affected by the number of open connections you use?

opening multiple connections isn't a problem for most people. how many mail servers do you see that will drown if subjected to five concurrent open connections? ten? (it doesn't matter if they're all from the same mail server or not.) you also get zero-effort automatic bounce handling if you open one connection per email, using verp. you can't do that with multiple rcpts.

DJB is ok with breaking RFCs just because his way is supposed to be better. Contrast that with the postfix changelog. While qmail has remained stagnant, postfix is constantly improving.


you didn't mention that postfix does the same thing as qmail -- it opens multiple connections. you also don't mention what all those changes give you: more complex configuration files and a much larger codebase (2.0.18 is over six times as large as qmail). or the result of grep -ci security on that history file.

i've used all three -- qmail, sendmail, and postfix -- for several years now. i've read all sorts of arguments for/against all of them. i've never read as much hate mail about qmail as i have about the others, except perhaps older sendmail 8 releases (pre-8.8). a lot of the hate mail is because qmail goes against their preconceptions of what unix applications should be like, or what mail servers should do. it's almost never because someone measured how qmail works and decided it didn't match up.
lambda
Major General
 
Posts: 3452
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 7:04 pm
Website: http://www.hungry.com/~fn/
Location: Lahore

Postby fawad » Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:17 am

if you look closely through freebsd's ports makefiles, you'll see a lot of packages marked that can't be redistributed as binaries, or placed on freebsd cdroms. there are also lots of stuff you won't see distributed with redhat, either (note the recent change w.r.t mp3s). given that, it's no biggie.

Like I mentioned in my post, it is reasonably Ok for source based systems. Not so much for the binary ones.

everyone has a superiority complex if they set out to write a different, "better" software application to do something, where other apps already exist to handle that problem space.

Umm, no. It's possible to be an amazing coder and not be a prick at the same time. I'll submit Miguel de Icaza (Ximian GNOME, mono, etc.) and Wietse Venema (inetd, postfix, satan, etc.) as examples. I'll also go as far as to say that OSS leaders who are stubborn and arrogant (like DJB, Theo deRaadt) are the exception, not the rule. Most Free Software people I've encountered are a delight to work with.

yes, it does that. is that a problem?

very much so, yes.
as an exercise, you have access to all the email addresses for users signed up here. sort them by domain, and count the number of domains. if you were to send mail to every user here, do you really think anyone will be affected by the number of open connections you use?

Yes, very much so. I'd wager that >5% of the people here (I think a safe assumption to make.) use hotmail. That makes it 60 people on one domain. If I were using postfix, the default default_destination_recipient_limit parameter has the value 50. That means that I can send mail to those hotmail.com recipients in 2 connections instead of 60 like qmail does. That means I am able to send a 50K message in 100K of data (not counting the SMTP protocol overhead) as opposed to 3000K.

I must admit that I'm not familiar with the workings of the VERP command.

you didn't mention that postfix does the same thing as qmail -- it opens multiple connections.

Sure it does. I only mentioned the differences because that was the point of the thread. The difference is that qmail opens one connection for each recipient. Postfix tries to open 1 connection per host.

Having adminned both qmail and postfix boxes, I have to say that your analysis of postfix config files is incorrect. In the best case, you can get away with editing as little as 4 lines. Postfix is larger because it does more than qmail does. KLOC is not really a good measure of the quality of code.

Regards
-fawad
fawad
Site Admin
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 8:00 pm
ICQ: 17672437
Website: http://www.fawad.net
WLM: fawadhalim@hotmail.com
Yahoo Messenger: fawad2048
AOL: fawadhalim
Location: Addison, IL

Postby lambda » Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:08 pm

yes, it does that. is that a problem?

very much so, yes.


you say it's a problem, but:

Yes, very much so. I'd wager that >5% of the people here (I think a safe assumption to make.) use hotmail. That makes it 60 people on one domain. If I were using postfix, the default default_destination_recipient_limit parameter has the value 50. That means that I can send mail to those hotmail.com recipients in 2 connections instead of 60 like qmail does. That means I am able to send a 50K message in 100K of data (not counting the SMTP protocol overhead) as opposed to 3000K.


are you paying extra for that 3mb? if not, it's not a problem. certainly, hotmail can deal with the bandwidth, as can pretty much every large mail server out there.

I must admit that I'm not familiar with the workings of the VERP command.


it is not a command. postfix ships with a readme that explains verp. it's a choice you have: use verp and automate bounce handling, or don't use verp and deliver more messages using less bandwidth (depending on your subscribers and how the remote servers are configured). qmail didn't just up and decide to do one connection per recipient for no reason at all.

Sure it does. I only mentioned the differences because that was the point of the thread. The difference is that qmail opens one connection for each recipient. Postfix tries to open 1 connection per host.


unless you have verp enabled. verp is the reason why many large mailing list servers use qmail (or postfix). if you were going to send 2 million messages to subscribers all over. you don't want to manually deal with the 20k (or more) bounces.

Having adminned both qmail and postfix boxes, I have to say that your analysis of postfix config files is incorrect. In the best case, you can get away with editing as little as 4 lines.


note that i said the config files were more complex, not that they needed lots of fiddling to get it to work. i'd like you to sit someone down in front of a computer, give them postfix rpms or whatever, and watch them to see what readme/sample/etc files they read to get set up. have them set up a virtual domain or two in addition to getting it up and running (most of my clients are isps).

i've written docs for two clients now for the above procedure, for both qmail and postfix. i know how different they are, and the mere fact that there are a lot more tunables for postfix makes it a lot harder to my clients to deal with (even if they don't need 90% of them). then again, i guess that's more money for me.

(postfix has over 300. qmail has something like 30.)

note that throughout this thread, i have not once stated that qmail is a better choice than postfix. it's just that your original post wasn't accurate in describing qmail, nor did it dismiss it on technical grounds.
lambda
Major General
 
Posts: 3452
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 7:04 pm
Website: http://www.hungry.com/~fn/
Location: Lahore


Return to “%s” Administration

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest