Re: Future of Qmail-LDAP

Hi,

On Wed, 03.02.2010 at 11:55:35 -0500, Russell Simpkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm guessing that no one has done anything because qmail-ldap just works.

unfortunately, I have to disagree here. Q-L has started to give us more
and more problems with interoperability (esp. sending emails) with
other mail servers out there, down at the network layer, which are well
beyond the resources we can afford to track them down. We had to
hurriedly install some other MTA - we opted for Postfix - to address
these, and installing Postfix as a smarthost for Q-L immediately solved
almost all of the interoperability problems.

> a new qmail. That way, if someone was to come up with a new anti-spam
> package, it could be created as a new module that would be easy to add in
> because the API is clearly defined.

You can probably do this already with both Qmail-LDAP and Postfix, eg.
by implementing qpsmtpd, and/or using something like qmail-scanner,
or policyd+amavisd.

> Again, I really like qmail-ldap and hope that it is here to stay.

Me too, but I really can't maintain it alone. After putting out some
questions about Q-L on this list weeks and months ago, I took the
responses, or lack thereof, as an additional sign that Q-L has already
fallen into some sort of coma.


For those of you who sneered about Postfix, I'm very much interested in
hearing your reasons. I agree that the configuration is ugly, and I
don't like all the concepts, too, but it's imho not nearly as much a
nightmare as are Sendmail and Exim, currently the only other
"contenders" from my point of view. If you don't want to clutter the
list with your opinion, please feel free to tell me off-list.


Last but not least, I'd also like to thank Claudio, Andre, Henning and
all other people who contributed to the project. It would still be a
very strong and comparably easy-to-handle package, if some warts could
be removed.



Kind regards,
--Toni++