🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Dec18.045058.18758@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>In article <47340@apple.Apple.COM> fair@Apple.COM (Erik E. Fair) writes:
>
>>However, I wouldn't try to run a medium-complex mail
>>installation (e.g. Apple Computer) without sendmail on the key systems
>>because there are no alternatives with its power and flexibility, for
>>those who are competant enough to make correct use of it.
>
>Have you investigated smail 3.1 (a very different thing than smail 2.5)?
>My impression (without much exposure to sendmail) is that it is more
>powerful than standard sendmail, especially in a uucp environment, but
>perhaps less flexible than sendmail + IDA.  I'd like to see a real
>point by point comparison, though, if anyone has had the fortitude
>to tackle both in depth.
>
>Les Mikesell
>  les@chinet.chi.il.us

You are partly right.  Smail 3.1 is VERY nice, easy to configure, easy
to maintain.  Your normal system manager can have it running from
source in about 2 hours.  The hardest part is editing the config file.
They even have a test configuration that you build, the system
installs in a place you specify, then you can test it at your leisure.
When you are satisfied that all is well, remake without the test
config flag set and install.  Real simple.  Out of the box the
configurations supplied will not have to be modified except for weird
circumstances, arcnet, bsmtp over uucp, etc.

My only gripe is that when using smtp you start it just like sendmail
(sendmail -bd -q30m), but you need to have an entry in your cron file
to check for mail that has been delayed and re-try delivery.

Other than that, the documentation is good, it is easy to maintain,
and bug-free.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Jim
-- 
ARPANET:    jadpc!jdeitch@nosc.mil
INTERNET:   jdeitch@jadpc.cts.com
UUCP:	    nosc!jadpc!jdeitch