Re: Future of Qmail-LDAP

I ended up handing the fight over to Ironport. Put in some Ironport
devices in front of my mail environment and ...
VIOLA! no more spam.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Enrico Valsecchi <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Hugo,
> I think tha a very very good idea refresh qmail software.
> During last month, with poor happy, I'm must migrate my mail servers from
> Qmail to Postfix.
>
> :-(
>
> Unfortunately, how are declared some peoples into this ML,
> panorama of Mail Server as change strongly during last 5 years.
>
> Today is not possible have server without Antispam filters as
> Spamassassim( or Dspam), RBL, greylist, various collaborative network (EX:
> Razor).
> Greylist are not cleaned technic, but if it used with attention, are a good
> efficient tool
> to REALLY cut spam.
> Greylist implementation are crazy on qmail. Really.
> If you use smtp authentication must apply one type of greylist, if you
> use smtp-after-pop you can use another one. Complex. More!
>
> Another complicated question are SFP and DKIM implementation.
>
> During my last mail server build, I have used qmail-ldap with control patch.
> My impression are that are very fantastic idea have control qmail files in
> ldap.
>
> Only very little problem (?!?!) are that qmail aren't capable to refresh
> rcpthost and locals when you insert a new.
> Result are stop and restart qmail, with all problems and difficulty that
> this scenario implies.
> Sorry, but if I use store configuration data in Ldap server, I expect that,
> when I change, software
> that use this data refresh automatically, without restart.
> In other words, if you store configuration files into a LDap, at this moment
> is useless.
> O.K., probably is comfortable for management but, in practice, useless.
> I'm go in /var/qmail/control with ssh and get same result!
>
> These are some problems that I have know during my 9 years of sys admin
> under mail server
> based on qmail.
>
> Really, major number of these difficulty are gived during last three year,
> probably because
> I work in ISP scenario, with customers that buy and configuring products in
> real time.
>
> During last two years, I have read that more users have migrate systems to
> PostFix.
> Now, I don't want spent more words for this choice,
> but PostFix can integrate more service with more facility in a acceptable
> security panorama.
> I think that these are a good keys to n# 2 of MTA must look to keep its
> position.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Enrico Valsecchi
>
>
>> Claudio et al,
>>
>> For some time now i've been wondering if there are any plans to enhance
>> Qmail-LDAP in a near future.
>>
>> Some improvements that come to my mind regard the possibility to adopt
>> some anti-spam solutions into the code tree, ipv6 support, LDAP code rewrite
>> to be compliant with the latest OpenLDAP API and changes in the build
>> process to be able to lower the dependencies of binary code on the build
>> host.
>>
>> With the release of Qmail code into the public domain, by DJB over two
>> years ago, i was also wondering if there are plans to start releasing
>> Qmail-LDAP as a standalone project, to be distributed as whole solution, and
>> not just as a patch for Qmail.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Hugo Monteiro.
>>
>
>
>



-- 
Scott Ryan
http://bonoboslr.wordpress.com/