NAS + NFS Greg_Cope at
Tue Apr 30 12:53:01 CDT 2002

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aly Dharshi [mailto:aly.dharshi at]
> Sent: 30 April 2002 17:55
> To: Cope, Greg
> Cc: linux-poweredge at
> Subject: Re: NAS + NFS
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message and any attachment has been virus checked by the 
> PGRD Sandwich Data Centre.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Greg, All,
> >qmail is very flexible once you grok the configuration, which
> >is an argument that you could use against anything complex.
>     I couldn't ever grok the configuration for Qmail, it was 
> rather odd
> having a number of files and trying to put stuff in many 
> files, very mind
> boggling for me, Exim works for me as it has just 1 configure 
> file and works
> well for me, its easy to understand well document it.
> >qmail has not had any bugs or security issues to resolve - if
> >its not broken do not fix it.
>     True enough, but in its current state its badly off, 
> people relying on
> /etc/passwd style lookups may benefit from it, those days are 
> gone, LDAP and
> *SQL lookups are based on patches, I think that the author or 
> someone else
> could have further developed it to take care of these new 
> technologies,
> where stuff like Sendmail, Courier smtp (not all) & Exim 
> supports *SQL, *DB,
> LDAP, PAM, NIS/NIS+ lookups and authentication methods out of 
> the box, I
> know postfix can do NIS and MySQL in the very least, there 
> are patches for
> NIS+.
>     So packages like Exim, Sendmail and Postfix have evolved 
> whereas Qmail
> has been stagnant. No forward development.
> >Some people swear by qmail, exim, postfix and even sendmail.
> >At the end of the day what ever you can configure securely is
> >probably the best bet, but not necessarily the latest version.
>     Sometimes the later versions a better then previous 
> versions and more
> secure. I for example would say that Exim 4.x is better than 
> Exim 3.x why,
> in 3 you had to write stuff to prevent !%@ etc in local_parts 
> of an e-mail
> addresses, in 4 its default deny those (obviously we don't 
> want people using
> your server as a relay)  better spam prevention methods etc 
> etc etc. One
> could go on. Likewise a person could go on about Postfix. 
> Nowadays its a
> matter of feature. How can one adapt the same software for various
> authentication methods and for flexibility with out too much 
> work. I think
> Exim was the answer for me.
>     I seem to have a distaste for proprietory mail systems, 
> Netscape was one
> of them, they have a really bulky system does alot of stuff 
> in memory and
> when you have to reboot that machine it actually has to write 
> the memory
> contents to disk what a waste of time in my case, their mailboxes are
> proprietory and makes mbox 2 maildir conversion a walk in the park.
>     So I don't know if I completely agree with you there. But 
> everyone has
> their opinion and if yours works, excellent, these are just 
> my thoughts. :)
> :) :) : )
>     Cheers,
>         Aly.

This message and any attachment has been virus checked by the 
PGRD Sandwich Data Centre.

More information about the Linux-PowerEdge mailing list