Qmail Variant Comparison Table - another new thread attempt . .

People,

Trying again . . hope it works this time . . :

It is better to start a new thread for this discussion - I should 
describe what I am trying to achieve with this table:

   
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pj30OWYkbF3a5f8V6h2pTRCIabuzYYYcHu9pjcKg63o/edit#gid=0

I am NOT trying to list ALL the features of ALL the Qmail variants - I 
am try to compare them by listing features that the other variant(s) 
DON'T have so that someone like me, who can build a Qmail server from 
sources, can say, for example: "I can do it from scratch for myself but 
now I just want something I can install and run immediately as a Docker 
image" - and choose the appropriate variant.  Another deciding factor 
might be the need to be able to install from RPMs etc - most variants 
will do most of the things that people want - I want to be able to see 
the DIFFERENCES.


On 2016-09-17 18:19, Kai Peter wrote:
> eQmail and indimail have TLS support too. And btw, spamdyke can be
> used for auth and TLS too.


OK, If all variants can do TLS happily - I should remove that line of 
comparison.


> Your comparison is quite to flat to me.


Do you mean "too flat"? - in any case I am not sure what you mean by 
"flat".


> Short, indimail is the most
> complete one including a lot of features.


These are the things I want people to tell me . .


> s/qmail has the "best"
> implementation of IPv6, but requires ucspi-ssl for TLS - it can't be
> used with (x)inetd w/o additional software (TLS/SSL).


OK, I will add that as a comparison line.


> eQmail is - more
> or less - a patched netqmail with sripped source code and some
> replacements/addons from my daily practice.


I switched fairly painlessly from netQmail to eQmail a while ago - now I 
want to do a comparison.


> At least the most benefit
> of (X)qmail for me is its modularity. Thus it can be easily expanded
> through (inividual) wrappers to nearly any feature. Just in short.


Examples would be good.


> But independant of your sheet I think your initial problem is a config
> issue. I would expect this will happen with all qmail variants as well
> with any other MTA.


OK . .


> the root cause is to feature out and understand
> what is going wrong. Not to read standard docs as a variant of LWQ or
> switching to another software.


I don't understand what you are getting at . .


> And one more: a lot of the people who
> are running a MTA (public) shouldn't do this - IMHO. This would
> prevent all from a lot of trouble. This is not a qmail issue. Call me
> the bad one.


Again, I don't understand what you are getting at here either . .

Thanks,

Phil.
-- 
Philip Rhoades

PO Box 896
Cowra  NSW  2794
Australia
E-mail:  [email protected]