Re: [exim] Exim has a bad queue handling?

SeattleServer.com wrote:
> On Sunday 22 October 2006 00:06, Stanislaw Halik wrote:
>
>>Would using qmail as a smarthost help? Not sure if overhead wouldn't
>>outweigh the benefits, though.
>
>
> I don't like using qmail anymore for authenticated connections...it won't even
> do it at all without extensive patching and doesn't give me the flexibility I
> like (like scanning with clamav and not accepting viruses at SMTP time,
> supporting NTLM authentication, etc.) Note I'm sure there's various qmail
> patches for all that stuff but as time goes on, keeping up with the plethora
> of patches you need to make qmail usable is growing increasingly nightmarish
> as it's unmaintained software.
>
> The bulk mailings don't need to pass through the MSA, anyways, as they are
> from a trusted relay host. qmail can handle that just fine without patching
> iirc. The only patch I can think to consider for that is for supporting
> remote TLS hosts.
>
> Cheers,

Not to forget that the very 'technique' which once gave QMail an advantage -
that of opening a separate connection for each message/recipient on a target
destination - has become associated with certain spam techniques.

Hitting an 'smtp_accept_max_per_host' limit and having to retry later may very
well negate that 'advantage'.

Bill