Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Postfix 2.1 Released

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the got-mail? dept.

Software 286

MasTRE writes "After an extended period of polishing and testing, Postfix 2.1 is released. Some highlights: complete documentation rewrite (long overdue!), policy delegation to external code, real-time content filtering _before_ mail is accepted (a top 10 most requested feature in previous versions), major revision of the LDAP/MySQL/PGSQL code. Version 2.2 is in thw works, which promises even more features like client rate limiting and integration of the TLS and IPv6 patches into the official tree. There's never been a better time to migrate from Sendmail (just _had_ to get that in there ;)."

cancel ×

286 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

TEH FIRST POSTFIX 2.1 RELEASED!!!`1 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950183)

Aaargghhh! (5, Interesting)

gowen (141411) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950204)

It would be nice if, during product announcements, if the submitter actually included a sentence SAYING WHAT THE SOFTWARE DOES.

Yes, I know its an SMTP server, but sheesh, is it so hard to start it "After an extended period of polishing and testing, Postfix, the popular open source mail transfer agent, has reached version 2.1

Re:Aaargghhh! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950321)

I argee it's a common problem here, but in this case I thought "There's never been a better time to migrate from Sendmail" was pretty obvious. You just had to read a lot first.

Re:reading a lot... (1)

airdrummer (547536) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950403)

is this an instance of the famous tv-induced a.d.d.?

or is this the result of our school systems?

or did the o.p. just think it would be helpful to reach more people if that quote were the subject?;-)

Re:Aaargghhh! (4, Funny)

mattdm (1931) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950335)

Pssh. C'mon, what kind of geek hasn't heard of Postfix? I mean, sure, this'd be a valid complaint if we were talking about exim....

*grin*

Re:Aaargghhh! (4, Funny)

Billy the Mountain (225541) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950565)

Pssh. C'mon, what kind of geek hasn't heard of Postfix?

I agree postfix is ubiquitous, although prefix and infix have their merits as well!

BTM

Re:Aaargghhh! (-1, Troll)

Eric Savage (28245) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950577)

What's exim?

Re:Aaargghhh! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950597)

"Exim is a message transfer agent (MTA) developed at the University of Cambridge for use on Unix systems connected to the Internet. It is freely available under the terms of the GNU General Public Licence. In style it is similar to Smail 3, but its facilities are more general. There is a great deal of flexibility in the way mail can be routed, and there are extensive facilities for checking incoming mail. Exim can be installed in place of sendmail, although the configuration of exim is quite different to that of sendmail."

http://www.exim.org/ [exim.org]

Re:Aaargghhh! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950342)

It also failed to mention that sendmail is in fact much better.

this SMTP server vs Qmail and Sendmail (3, Interesting)

astellar (675749) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950407)

I use QMail and Sendmail on several hosting servers. Which advantages will my customers get with Postfix ?

Re:this SMTP server vs Qmail and Sendmail (4, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950582)

It's Free Software (unlike Qmail) without Sendmail's security record (unlike Sendmail).

Personally, I still use Sendmail everywhere, but Postfix is designed to be a fast, secure, easy-to-configure MTA. It would be my migration path of choice if I were ever having problems in any of those three areas.

Re:this SMTP server vs Qmail and Sendmail (0, Flamebait)

afd8856 (700296) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950648)

Just like KDE is not Free Software because it is based on Qt, which has a comercial license? Well, hell, is it me or I didn't have to pay anything for my Qmail server, and it came with source code? What else does it need to qualify for the Free Software title?

Re:this SMTP server vs Qmail and Sendmail (5, Informative)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950866)

qmail isn't free software because it's non-forkable.

You can freely redistribute the source and binaries compiled from clean source. And you can distribute patches to it.

However, the point is, the qmail maintainer is the only person who can release new versions of qmail. And hence it's not free software.

There are two very large dangers with qmail...that it will go off in a random direction no one agrees with, and you'll either have to follow along or go that way, and that the qmail maintainer will just stop releasing new versions. With free software, if enough people use it, they will simply make a fork...but they can't do that with qmail. Technically they could grab a random version and keep building patches off that, but that becomes unmaintainable real fast.

In other words, qmail is basically 'freeware', not 'free software', although it does come in source form, and you have been granted the ability to modify it and even share the modifications. But not the end result.

Re:Aaargghhh! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950431)

It would be nice if, during product announcements, if the submitter actually included a sentence SAYING WHAT THE SOFTWARE DOES.

Who cares? Postfix is doomed. It's slow and hard to use. Maybe it does have support for more "enterprise class" features, but for 99% of the applications people run today, MySQL does everything it does and faster.

/ducks behind AC

Re:Aaargghhh! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950644)

Microsoft Encarta has far more enterprise features than MySQL and is faster.

Re:Aaargghhh! (2, Interesting)

StormyMonday (163372) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950464)

I'll second that.

On far too many Open Source projects, it's a real struggle to figure out what the durn thing is supposed to do. Go to the website, get a list of contributers, a changelog, and perhaps some press releases. Fire it up, click "help->about" and get a logo. Nothing says what it does.

WHAT THE BLEEP IS IT SUPPOSED TO DO?

Re:Aaargghhh! (1, Funny)

UnassumingLocalGuy (660007) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950494)

Postfix:

4 = 2 2 +

/oh wait...

Why does everyone alwasy gotta knock sendmail?? (4, Interesting)

darthcamaro (735685) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950205)

I've been running sendmail 4ever - sure it's complicated as hell - and a bit of a resource hog at times..but it freaking works and is rock solid over more years of production use than any other MTA ever will be in our lifetimes.

Re:Why does everyone alwasy gotta knock sendmail?? (1, Insightful)

geek (5680) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950232)

Because of the design flaws in it and the fact that muh better MTA's now exist yet many people, some like you, refuse to migrate for the betterment of the internet.

My preference is qmail, only because I haven't used postfix in a production environment yet.

Re:Why does everyone alwasy gotta knock sendmail?? (1)

darthcamaro (735685) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950309)

Great..are we now gonna have some kinda religious debate about legacy software being crap?
qmail is nice but it's not ubiquitous...for whatever reason sendmail still is - a correctly configured sendmail setup is still gonna meet the needs/requirements of most users.

Re:Why does everyone alwasy gotta knock sendmail?? (1)

cookem (172702) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950334)

postfix is tons better than sendmail and it works great at moving our 100s of thousands of email a day on our mail proxies

plus there is no a security bug a week like sendmail

Re:Why does everyone alwasy gotta knock sendmail?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950444)

spammer!

Re:Why does everyone alwasy gotta knock sendmail?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950474)

Sorry for my bad english...

Well, I use Postfix and I'm very happy (in a big ISP production). But why you don't explain your "X is betther than Y, because I tell this..." ???

I like too sendmail, and I don't understand what would you say whith "there is no a security bug a week like sendmail". My BSD's machines run sendmail, and without bugs since a lot of month's... ??

Please, explain your "why's". I understand you like more one soft than another soft, but this is one, and another is to be serious and talk with one or more reasons "in mind"... ;-)

Sure, Qmail is good thing. (1)

astellar (675749) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950538)

May be a bit complicated, but works excellent.

Re:Why does everyone alwasy gotta knock sendmail?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950276)

Maybe cuz it's complicated as hell? That remotely via email root exploit not too long ago didn't help things either.

Re:Why does everyone alwasy gotta knock sendmail?? (1)

astellar (675749) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950451)

Maybe somebody have no time to read manuals ? ;)

because it's an ugly, lumbering dinosaur (5, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950304)

I've been running sendmail 4ever - sure it's complicated as hell - and a bit of a resource hog at times..but it freaking works and is rock solid over more years of production use than any other MTA ever will be in our lifetimes.

On a Axil 320(110mhz, I think? I forget which sparc chip) running Solaris w/320MB of ram and one single SCSI drive, on a Mailman list with about 2,000 subscribers and 100 posts a day, we went from delivery times of an hour+(and load averages well over 4) to under 5 minutes(and load averages between .5 and 2).

Proponents of Sendmail will say "oh, it just needs to be tuned properly".

Nope, sorry. Proper software doesn't need tuning to do its job. Ever notice that the only proponents of the "it just needs someone who knows how to tune it" model are...well...the limited number of people who know how to tune it, and are fast finding themselves out of jobs?

Re:because it's an ugly, lumbering dinosaur (2, Interesting)

darthcamaro (735685) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950353)

Under 5 minutes? that's sweet - you did this with Postfix? and how did you manage the MTA change in all your apps or did you only have to do in GNU/Mailman?

Re:because it's an ugly, lumbering dinosaur (1)

ffsnjb (238634) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950600)

I would seriously hope that GNU/Mailman could care less about the MTA in use. I use postfix, but enver had a need for Mailman, so I have no idea.

Re:because it's an ugly, lumbering dinosaur (4, Informative)

beegle (9689) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950708)

Postfix has a sendmail-compatable setup where it creates a binary named "sendmail" that accepts common sendmail flags. In most setups, a switch-over is totally transparent.

The hardest part is deciding which of your Sendmail optimizations are still necessary on Postfix.

Sendmail is mostly around because of inertia. It can also do a few sick things (like bridging SNMP and non-SNMP mail systems) that are not necessary for most sane people.

Re:because it's an ugly, lumbering dinosaur (4, Funny)

beegle (9689) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950752)

Sigh. s/SNMP/SMTP/g

If an SNMP-based mail system exists, I don't want to know about it. :-)

Re:because it's an ugly, lumbering dinosaur (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950803)

postfix is a drop-in replacement for sendmail, butt-tard. No managing changes required.

Re:because it's an ugly, lumbering dinosaur (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950872)

Sweet! So I can drop-in Postfix without making any changes at all to my virtual hosting configuration, Cyrus IMAP setup (delivers mail internally), or spam/virus filters? Man, it's come a long way since three months ago when it couldn't do any of that automatically. Why, I think I'll skip my coffee break to swap out my mail transfer system!

Yeah, I'm being sarcastic. Do you really believe what you wrote, or have I been trolled?

Re:because it's an ugly, lumbering dinosaur (5, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950815)

Proper software doesn't need tuning to do its job.

You may or may not be correct in this particular case, but as a general statement, that's just stupid.

Do you really mean that the exact same settings for a little desktop (high priority to input-related tasks, swap only when needed) would work well for a high-load server (high priority to compute-related tasks, swap agressively to make RAM quickly available)? There are a lot of settings on a modern system that just can't be inferred by the system itself. Stating the opposite like it's an obvious fact is ignorant, misleading, or both.

A real-world example: a Usenet spool and an MP3 repository may be the same size, but benefit hugely from tweaked bytes-per-inode or journal settings. In some cases, once the system is running, it's too late to easily change your mind (like bytes-per-inode). In other cases, you can switch at will, but not without unmounting the filesystem (ext3 journaling options). You, as the administrator, make those decisions. Either way, even if the computer were capable of recognizing that you'd made a bad decision, it's not in a position to correct them.

A real-world example: I tuned Sendmail to use delayed sending so that when a client blasted 20,000 copies of a newsletter (yes, opt-in), then it would wait for several minutes so that it could efficiently aggregate recipients by domain. In there situation, telling Sendmail to leave email in the queue for 10 minutes meant a 50% savings in bandwidth. How on earth would you expect a self-tuned MTA to ever make that discovery on its own?

Computers do some things well. Predicting the future usage patterns of their owners without mounds of previous input is not one of them. That's where manual tuning comes in, and why real system administrators still paid decently.

As my head explodes.... (5, Funny)

lacrymology.com (583077) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950211)

Wait, wouldn't post fix Postfix 2.1 actually be fix 2.2?

-m

Re:As my head explodes.... (1)

suwain_2 (260792) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950632)

I think you're thinking of Prefix 2.0

KILL JEWS PLZ (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950213)

gayyyy

Next time... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950219)

Get us the news, and keep the product bias to yourself. Many of us are happy with Sendmail without your yelping about Postfix.

Re:Next time... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950270)


Many of us are happy with Sendmail

.. as are the kiddies that've r00ted your mail server.

I'm waiting for competitor updates... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950233)

Suffix, Prefix, and Radix.

Re:I'm waiting for competitor updates... (1)

Lobo93 (638514) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950663)

Suffix, Prefix, and Radix.

You forgot Suxchange from Microdix...

Oh, btw, this message was approved by the Ministry of Silly Walks.

A big shout out to teh postfix guys (-1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950245)

Postfix is truly the best MTA available for Linux. Sendmail is incredibly insecure and a nightmare to manage, while qmail suffers from some stupid security issues, and is owned by an unbalanced egomaniac that requires all kinds of ridiculous installations to make it work.

Postfix on the other hand is simple to manage, secure, and isn't missing any important features.

Re:A big shout out to teh postfix guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950301)

The only stupid security issue with qmail is people like you spreading false rumors. So if postfix isn't missing any important features why are they planning 2.2?

Re:A big shout out to teh postfix guys (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950366)

ok... [securityfocus.com]

Re:A big shout out to teh postfix guys (1)

cookem (172702) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950368)

postfix just plan gets the job done....it is by far the best MTA out there for linux

versioning (1)

pizza_milkshake (580452) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950260)

Version 2.2 is in the works, which promises even more features

i was under the impression that the standard methodology in the unix-ish/open source-ish world was that odd sub-versions (.1, .3, etc.) were for adding features and even sub-versions (.2, .4, etc.) were for stabilizing the code, bug fixes, etc.

am i incorrect or does the postfix project simply not follow this model? just curious.

Re:versioning (4, Informative)

gowen (141411) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950296)

That was basically Linus's idea. Some people have copied it (Gnome and Gimp hackers spring to mind), but its by no means all pervasive.

Re:versioning (2, Funny)

hmallett (531047) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950506)

Gimp hackers...
Don't pick on them just because of the version numbers they coose, you insensitive clod...

Re:versioning (1)

Ded Bob (67043) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950319)

i was under the impression that the standard methodology in the unix-ish/open source-ish world was that odd sub-versions (.1, .3, etc.) were for adding features and even sub-versions (.2, .4, etc.) were for stabilizing the code, bug fixes, etc.

That is just Linux.

Re:versioning (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950341)

You're forgetting the parent post authors theory on the world, Linux is the same thing as Unix, and Linux is the world, with out it, the earth would stop spinning and we'd all be thrown off into space.

Re:versioning (1)

pizza_milkshake (580452) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950380)

You're forgetting the parent post authors theory on the world, Linux is the same thing as Unix, and Linux is the world, with out it, the earth would stop spinning and we'd all be thrown off into space.

i do sometimes forget that /. has warped me. i apologize.

Linux Kernel (1)

Ian_Bailey (469273) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950378)

That's the model used by the developers of the Linux kernel, but it is by no means a standard, even in the open source world.

Re:Linux Kernel (1)

stevenbdjr (539653) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950519)

I think some of the guys at Microsoft may have used this at some point, also. Odd numbered NT service packs were a nightmare.

In particular, NT4 SP5 was about as stable as Windows ME on a Cyrix chip...

Re:Linux Kernel (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950606)

I think the odd/even versioning also applies to Star Trek movies (suck/good/suck/good...) and Beethovan symphonies (suck/good/suck/good...).

Re:Linux Kernel (2, Funny)

gowen (141411) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950699)

Its the other way round with /. UIDs. Odd numbers are gurus and geniuses, even numbers are dweebs and wannabes. Its a pretty clever algorithm that gives them out.

Already Upgraded...works great. (4, Informative)

haplo21112 (184264) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950267)

I upgraded first thing this morning when I saw the listing on freshmeat. So far its a drop in replacement.

Download
tar -zxvf
cd postfix-2.1.0
make
make upgrade
postfix stop
postfix start

No issues what so ever!

Even working correctly with TMDA whitelisting/blacklisting spam filter, which had been my one real concerns did anything happen that could screw up TMDA. NOPE! Runs fine.

Have to go ahead and look into setup and using some of the new features now I suppose.

missing step (4, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950370)

[long list of software install steps snipped]

Nowhere did I see:

"-read the changelog notes to see if any of the numerous changes classified as "incompatible" affected me or my users".

Re: two more missing steps (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950670)

1. download
2. tar -zxvf
3. cd postfix-2.1.0
4. read changelog
5. make
6. make upgrade
7. postfix stop
8. postfix start
9. ???
A. profit

sorry, couldn't resist

Re:missing step (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950722)

Bah. They modded you "funny" for that.

Re:Already Upgraded...works great. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950457)

What are you, an MCSE who got the root login by accident? Good lord man, I hope you never touch one of my production systems.

Qmail (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950268)

Has had the content filtering for quit a while now. And guess what, all it takes is a simple patch (qmailqueue) and one of several solutions. Postfix is becoming just as complicated as sendmail and the more complicated it becomes the more changes you get for exploits.

Re:Qmail (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950299)

Re:Qmail (1)

sgifford (9982) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950433)

While that's a bug, it's not a security issue. It can't cause execution of arbitrary code. In fact, all it does is causes the SMTP session sending the message to shut down. It may be possible to take advantage of this to delay mail slightly, but it's really not something to worry about.

Additionally, a group of qmail hackers have put together netqmail-1.05 [qmail.org] , a patchset which addresses this and other issues.

Re:Qmail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950613)

Great! Where can I download the RPM?

Comparisons (2, Informative)

thebra (707939) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950282)

on sendmail, qmail, exim, and postfix. HERE [shearer.org]

Re:Comparisons (1, Interesting)

jrumney (197329) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950647)

From the linked page:
...security-focussed features of qmail (binaries in /var,...

Since when is it a security-focussed feature to install your binaries in a writable partition?

Re:Comparisons (5, Informative)

Ryquir (172934) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950661)

Yeah your comparisons link is seriously outdated (cicra 2001) and only compares mta descriptions. It is neither indepth nor does it touch on the features that existed at the time. With statements like "Add to this sendmail's renowned inefficiency" or "Postfix is quite flexible in its configuration file, but not to the extent of Exim" this document can't be anything more then a abstract draft written up for basic filler in attempt to sell a book idea to publishers.

This wouldn't have been a good comparison at the time it was written let alone now. Next time try googling a little harder perhaps you would have found this link: http://www.geocities.com/mailsoftware42/ [geocities.com] or heck google it for yourself here http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&q=MTA+comparison&btnG=Google+Search [google.com]

Postfix performs quite well (4, Interesting)

bigberk (547360) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950288)

I recently configured a 200 MHz Pentium host (with slow IDE drives etc.) as an ISP's mail server. It handles over 10,000 emails daily and the load average hangs around at 0.10 -- it's using Postfix with the renattach attachment filter [pc-tools.net] as a content filter (catches all those windows viruses). I was pretty impressed that Postfix performed so well on such an ancient machine :)

Great software, bad hardware (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950539)

I hope you designed for failure. When that old CPU fan craps out, a fast Postfix will do no good. Free software should not mean using old, unreliable hardware for critical tasks.

Re:Great software, bad hardware (2, Informative)

bigberk (547360) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950667)

When that old CPU fan craps out, a fast Postfix will do no good.
You're absolutely right. We're in the process of moving to some proper FreeBSD colocated servers (but then, what will I do with all the spare computing power)?

Re:Great software, bad hardware (2, Interesting)

wagemonkey (595840) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950869)

I'm sure someone can come up with a joke about beowulf clusters....
Shift some services to it, network monitoring, security scans. Stuff you can easily run somewhere else if it dies but it's handy not to. Or donate it to a charity that wants it. MP3 server, CD jukebox server. Write something spiffy to act as a voicemail system...

Screw sendmail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950300)

And qmail

Postfix will dominate the world.
This mail software actually has developers. It's faster than qmail, it has much more sophisticated UCE controls.

There are also few, if any, patches to apply to get just about any custom system working.

The UCE controls alone help it kick the crap out of qmail. It doesn't have to accept 70% of emails up front, thus it has less to process.

The advantage is, even most morons can write mail software. The disadvantage is, most don't follow RFCs, especially as well as postfix.

The database support is second to none, it's mailling list is more active than mysql's. It's implentation rate is growing exponentially.

That is all.

improved documentation.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950302)

...complete documentation rewrite...

http://www.postfix.org/documentation.html: The requested URL /documentation.html was not found on this server.

Ah, so this is what they mean :)

Re:improved documentation.. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950410)

or you go to the actual link
http://www.postfix.org/docs.html
and it magically works.

to update or not to update? (2, Interesting)

Chuck Bucket (142633) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950314)

that's the question.

I've been running Postfix for 8 months now, and I much, much prefer it to my life of running Sendmail for the previous 2 years. Anyway, I've been running Postfix, it has worked perfectly for me, and my 8 other mail users, and I have kept up to date on all/any security patches. Is there any compelling reason for me to upgrade? If the newer one is faster, more effiecent, that's great, but for a small server like mine I'm not sure if I'm even going to notice.

Anyone with helpful advice is appreciated. TIA.

VSCB

Re:to update or not to update? (5, Funny)

arcanumas (646807) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950585)

dude, with 8 users you could use trained pigeons and not see a difference.

Converting from sendmail? (3, Interesting)

marko_ramius (24720) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950323)

> There's never been a better time to migrate
> from Sendmail (just _had_ to get that in
> there ;).

So is there any documentation describing a good way to convert from sendmail? Like, how the directives in sendmail map to directives in postfix?

mr

Re:Converting from sendmail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950349)

Postfix was made as a drop in replacement for sendmail.

Why don't you grow some balls, and try it.

Re:Converting from sendmail? (5, Informative)

bearl (589272) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950741)

In the source directory there's a text file named INSTALL that has detailed instructions for the three installation options, including "Replace sendmail altogether."

I won't quote them here in case some of the steps have changed, but it's a very nice step by step list of what to do, what to type, and when to type it.

But.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950350)

I spent all of this time getting postfix, procmail, spamassassin and clamav playing nicely together. Do I really *want* to upgrade so I can filter mail before its accepted?

Yes. This oughta be fun!

damnit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950379)

Ive been stuck at qmail 1.03 for years now?! when is that lazy djb bastard gonna get off his ass and release a newer version?!?!? Im sure there are just tons of bugs in it waiting to be fixed.. ;)

-dirtbag

Re:damnit! (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950436)

DJB is a fuckin moron, that thinks enviroment variables in his dns servers are required to run.
His so called secure programming is his ability to deny security issues.

If you use his software, you're not helping the GNU cause. You're mearly contributing to an author who has a distorted reality, and inability to admit fault.

Re:damnit! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950484)

That's funny, AC almost described Steve Jobs!

Re:damnit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950571)

Don't forget you'll need a mega-terabyte /var partition 'cuz that's where DJB likes his crap to live.

Postfix Heaven (5, Informative)

Chromodromic (668389) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950397)

I just finished installing and configuring Postfix with TLS, Cyrus SASL, Maildir storage (which Postfix simply "does" by appending a "/" at the end of a mailbox path), and virtual users alongside Courier-IMAP, and, man, was it easy. I had the help of O'Reilly's Postfix: The Definitive Guide [amazon.com] and between that, the provided documentation and the wealth of resources available on the Web, I was able to get everything up and running in record time.

I know this sounds like a commercial, but it's hard not to sound that way when everything just kind've worked the first time. I now have authenticated, encrypted SMTP and POP and my users are, literally, thanking me. My experience has been that using Postfix was an easy way for me to look good.

Here's a Postfix SASL HOWTO [porcupine.org] which came in handy, but there are a lot of resources on the Web, especially at the Postfix [postfix.org] site.

insight needed (2, Interesting)

U.I.D 754625 (754625) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950408)

Is it worthwhile to migrate to postfix from qmail? Qmail has a weird license scheme preventing binary distribution that sort of urked me, not to mention hit-or-miss setup documentation, but it's been running great for years now. I've wanted to add some virtual domains and spam filtering and it might just be easier to swap the whole MTA.

Re:insight needed (3, Informative)

Xenophon Fenderson, (1469) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950801)

I don't see any compelling reasons to migrate if everything is working fine in Qmail.

If you want a cookbook on how to set up Postfix and SpamAssassin and friends, there are several really good resources: Jeffrey Posluns [securitysage.com] , Jim Seymour [linxnet.com] , Meng Wong [mengwong.com] (old but still useful). Posluns' guide is probably where you should start first.

Re:insight needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950824)

Yes. With Postfix I don't have to apply patches to get SMTP AUTH support (that may or may not work with my distribution's source package). Or any of the other features that qmail doesn't provide natively.

I migrated from qmail to postfix almost two years ago and haven't looked back.

SASL, spam, viruses (2, Insightful)

gtoomey (528943) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950414)

SASL authentication was a shocker to get working with Postfix. Some people had not problems, but Murphy'y Law meant I never got it working properly. Lets hope its fixed.

And it looks like content filtering (spam & virus filters) has been improved with version 2.1

Developers?? (3, Insightful)

shift (222320) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950425)

Why is this in the developers section? Wouldn't it be more appropriately placed in a topic for system administrators?

Real-time filtering (5, Informative)

DustMagnet (453493) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950426)

Cool, what's that about? I found this written by Wietse Venema the author/maintianer for postfix:
When used with a real-time SPAM filter, this approach allows Postfix to reject mail before the SMTP mail transfer completes, so that Postfix does not have to return rejected mail to the sender. Mail that is not accepted remains the responsibility of the client.

In all other respects this content filtering approach is inferior to the existing content filter (see FILTER_README) which processes mail AFTER it is queued.

The problem with real-time content filtering is that the remote SMTP client expects an SMTP reply within a deadline. As the system load increases, fewer and fewer CPU cycles remain available to answer within the deadline, and eventually you either have to stop accepting mail or you have to accept unfiltered mail.

Too bad it doesn't have a counter attack mode, yet.

Sendmail upgrade? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950441)

There's never been a better time to migrate from Sendmail
It seems Exim 4 was released Feb 2002. It includes IPV6, TLS, and SMTPAUTH via PAM, LDAP, MYSQL, PostgreSQL and more.. There is also client rate limiting, and realtime spam/virus filtering no need to accept and bounce junk.
If you're using Postfix and have been waiting for any of these "new features", go ahead and try Exim.
Exim home page [exim.org]

SMTP time scanning, finally. (5, Informative)

stevenbdjr (539653) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950461)

real-time content filtering _before_ mail is accepted

About time. I've been doing this with Exim [exim.org] and Exiscan [duncanthrax.net] for almost 2 years now. It's nice to see other MTA's begin to incorporate this functionality. Now, if everyone upgrades and takes advantage of this wonderful feature, maybe the number of false NDR's I receive due to forged senders will start to go down...

who cares? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8950482)

qmail 1.03 still works fine!

The Doc (5, Informative)

anarcat (306985) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950555)

Yeah, that's good. I always had trouble finding my way into the postfix documentation, now it's a lot clearer [porcupine.org] . I especially like the listing of all main.cf settings [porcupine.org] (now if there would be a manpage for master.cf too...) and the bottleneck analysis tool [porcupine.org] .

I do miss however the "big pictures" yellow + blue graphs that seduced me into trying out postfix long time ago. Now we're stuck with pityful text-only rendering [porcupine.org]

Still great, after all those years, postfix is my MTA of choice: ease of use, power and security.

MOD PARENT DOWN (-1, Offtopic)

menscher (597856) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950683)

-1, Troll -- Gratuitous sendmail bashing.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (0, Offtopic)

stridebird (594984) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950870)

How? You are parentless, top of the tree, primary node.

Or i got my slash settings wrong.

Or you want to mod the original article down? Yeah, that might be a useful new feature. Can we do that, slash? What if we think the article is a troll? Can we moderate the original article too?

Postfix + TLS/SSL + SMTP-AUTH HOWTO (4, Informative)

phoxix (161744) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950749)

Hi guys,

Postfix + TLS/SSL + SMTP-AUTH HOWTO [opencurve.org]

I wrote this howto a while back ago. It explains what is needed to be done in setting up a secure Postfix SMTP server with TLS/SSL and SMTP-AUTH. It isn't fully done (but the meat is there). I hope someone will find it useful.

Sunny Dubey

PS: no I have *not* submitted it to postfix.org, for it is not done, and its doesn't have all that I want in it. (Must add virus/spam scanning to it first)

Bzzzzzzz! (0, Troll)

stridebird (594984) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950794)

MySQL

It uses MySQL. So doesn't that mean it gets a lathering from the DB cult here at slash? Cue tedious theoretical discussion from hightoned types defending their $$$ investment in tech education...

Grudgingly going back to Sendmail. (4, Interesting)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 10 years ago | (#8950857)

One of my servers is a big Sparc box (running Linux, not Solaris) that performs backup MX and other relay services for about a hundred domains at a hosting center. It gets constantly pounded on all day long. Originally it ran Sendmail, and it was badly loaded down. Installing Postfix cleared up all the problems. It's just that much better.

Unfortunately, with all the extra mail traffic now due to MORE spam, MORE viruses, and all the bounces generated by the above, we have to expand again. And we have to go back to Sendmail because of one particular feature: you can have multiple Sendmail instances sharing an NFS-mounted queue. Since the new system is multiple Sparc boxes in a load-balanced cluster, we have to go back to Sendmail because Postfix doesn't support this. :(
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>