Article View: chico.ect.help
Article #50Re: our mail is bouncing
From: Tyler Yip - UnixWeenie(tm)
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 00:00
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 00:00
57 lines
3506 bytes
3506 bytes
In article <76hbf3$p4e$1@hubble.csuchico.edu>, Pythagoras Watson <py@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote: >According to Tyler Yip - UnixWeenie(tm) <davros@ecst.csuchico.edu>: >:gangrene and anthrax are bouncing our mail for spam violation and/or >:unknown local user. > >Sorry about that. We changed the name of spam to something more in line >with the machine room disease naming scheme. Unfortunately, that broke >NFS, so qmail ending up thinking the users did not exist. > >:Would someone please install sendmail. > >Not that anything is likely to change in the near future, but I would be >curious about reasons as to why qmail should be replaced with sendmail. >What exactly do you miss about sendmail? > LISA'98 had a debate session, "Mailer Wars" in which some guy who was a proponent of Qmail, primarily based upon two premises - security and speed, repeatedly flamed Sendmail. Each time he mentioned security, Wietse Venema, who was there as a proponent for PostFix (aka Vmailer), would laugh and point and generally heckle him. Sure Qmail has a reputation for being secure. Sendmail's still a good mailer. As for the argument for speed, Eric Allman made a strong point. Qmail produces speed for sending mail (optimal for mailing list servers, which isn't an issue at Chico) by conducting multiple asynchronous streams of outbound traffic to any given site based solely upon the local conditions such as the queue age and load. There is no consideration given to the conditions on the remote site. This also induces a danger that Qmail will deliver a given message more than once since there may be multiple Qmail sessions processing the queue independent of eachother at a given time. The Qmail proponent gave some ballpark figure of a given site's mailing list server performance as millions of messages per hour. Being able to shove several million messages per hour down anyone else's throat isn't a good reason to choose a mailer, and properly tuned, Sendmail can handle transfer rates like that in a more robust manner. Sendmail also doesn't require multiple separate independent long running daemons to process your queue. Personal peeves: Qmail, or at least the installation here, doesn't put our real names in our mail. more and more people think my name is dave. Qmail, or at least the installation here, doesn't understand timestamps. All our mail goes out GMT, and it's not consistant. Initiating host's Qmail puts in a -0000 offset, but the Qmail handling the initial Received header puts in a -0800 offset, and for locally delivered mail it delivers with a -0000 offset, resulting in our new mail being mailformed. It's to the point that I have to look at procmail logs in order to find out when my mail actually arrived. -- Tyler Yip : @Home Network : http://www.home.net System Administrator : 425 Broadway : tyler@corp.home.net : Redwood City, Calif. : @Home - Unreasonably Fast
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<76hei6$p6v$1@hubble.csuchico.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<76fct9$lff$1@hubble.csuchico.edu> <76hbf3$p4e$1@hubble.csuchico.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10fe8a,40bf8ce51bdba5e8 X-Google-Attributes: gid10fe8a,public From: davros@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tyler Yip - UnixWeenie(tm)) Subject: Re: our mail is bouncing Date: 1999/01/01 Message-ID: <76hei6$p6v$1@hubble.csuchico.edu> X-Deja-AN: 427634922 Distribution: ecst References: <76fct9$lff$1@hubble.csuchico.edu> <76hbf3$p4e$1@hubble.csuchico.edu> Organization: California State University, Chico Newsgroups: chico.ect.help