Benefits of Sendmail over Qmail

[Melpa]

Hi

We are looking at two ISP's to manage our incoming/outgoing mail.

One uses Qmail and the other Sendmail as the MTA's.

I have heard that Qmail has shortcomings in terms of trying only one
IP per MX, one MX per domain, and also not bundling messages to multi-
recipients in the same domain.

Does anyone know if Sendmail has similar/worse issues, or is better in
any way?

Thanks

[David F. Skoll]

Melpa wrote:

> We are looking at two ISP's to manage our incoming/outgoing mail.
> One uses Qmail and the other Sendmail as the MTA's.

If the ISPs are managing the mail, you shouldn't care what MTA they
use. Just be sure you pick a competent ISP.

If *you* are in charge of picking an MTA, I'd certainly recommend
Sendmail over Qmail. Qmail is essentially no longer maintained and
hasn't bothered keeping up with newer RFCs. It has its own non-standard
delivery status notification format. It needs to be patched to reject
nonexistent recipients at RCPT time. It doesn't like to bundle messages
for multiple recipients at a given domain, preferring to send one message
per recipient.

Sendmail suffers from none of those problems.

Regards,

David.

[Melpa]

Hi David

>If *you* are in charge of picking an MTA, I'd certainly recommend
>Sendmail over Qmail. Qmail is essentially no longer maintained and
>hasn't bothered keeping up with newer RFCs. It has its own non-standard
>delivery status notification format. It needs to be patched to reject
>nonexistent recipients at RCPT time. It doesn't like to bundle messages
>for multiple recipients at a given domain, preferring to send one message
>per recipient.

Thanks for the info.

How do you mean it needs to be pached to reject nonexistence
recipients? And the RFC's you
are referring to, are they RFC 2821/2822, Qmail instead preferring
their predecessors?

Thanks again

[J.O. Aho]

Melpa wrote:
> Hi David
>
>> If *you* are in charge of picking an MTA, I'd certainly recommend
>> Sendmail over Qmail. Qmail is essentially no longer maintained and
>> hasn't bothered keeping up with newer RFCs. It has its own non-standard
>> delivery status notification format. It needs to be patched to reject
>> nonexistent recipients at RCPT time. It doesn't like to bundle messages
>> for multiple recipients at a given domain, preferring to send one message
>> per recipient.
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
> How do you mean it needs to be pached to reject nonexistence
> recipients?

Mentioned in the recent thread "sendmail security (compared to other MTAs)"
http://spamlinks.net/prevent-secure-backscatter.htm#reject-qmail

> And the RFC's you
> are referring to, are they RFC 2821/2822, Qmail instead preferring
> their predecessors?

RFC 1894/RFC 3464, you could say everything that has been released since
1998-06-15 would not be met by qmail.

--

//Aho

[D. Stussy]

"Melpa" <kammy_...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a4979e87-9ae8-4f81...@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...

The current RFC for SMTP is 5321.

[Claude Frantz]

Melpa wrote:

> How do you mean it needs to be pached to reject nonexistence
> recipients?

Depending on the environment, using a "sink" user, which gets all
messages for non-existent recipients, can be a good idea. This behavior
can be configured with sendmail without any patch.