| Damn, it's been nearly 20 years since qmail 1.03 was released (June 1998)? It sure doesn't seem like that long! I recall setting up qmail "toasters" on FreeBSD to do virtual hosting. Maybe I was just too much of a "n00b" but I remember it being a big PITA to get all the services to play well together. There was this hip new outfit named Yahoo! that was using it for their new webmail service, though -- as opposed to sendmail, which pretty much every MTA on the Internet used at the time (and I was proficient enough with sendmail that I would edit my sendmail.cf by hand; pffft, who needs m4!?) -- so I assumed it was certainly capable of handling my volume of mail. (I wasn't running authoritative DNS servers at the time or I probably would've used djbdns over BIND as well.) qmail, unfortunately, never did become too popular (relatively speaking, of course) and that's really a shame, because, as the quote in the article says: > "We need invulnerable software systems, and we need them today, ..." While that was certainly true then, it's even more true now. On a side note, I'm surprised that the "qmail security guarantee" [0,1] wasn't mentioned in the article: > "In March 1997, I took the unusual step of publicly offering $500 to the first person to publish a verifiable security hole in the latest version of qmail: for example, a way for a user to exploit qmail to take over another account. My offer still stands. Nobody has found any security holes in qmail. I hereby increase the offer to $1000." [0]: https://cr.yp.to/qmail/guarantee.html [1]: https://cr.yp.to/qmail/qmailsec-20071101.pdf (PDF) |
At one point, it was the second most popular MTA on the Internet. What pray tell would "too popular" look like?
> I remember it being a big PITA to get all the services to play well together.
When you were thinking about qmail correctly, it was an absolute pleasure to get everything to work together. Promise. Yet whilst the documentation was correct, it probably wasn't very good from the perspective of helping people think about it correctly. André Oppermann[1] (and perhaps Dave Sill[2]) did a much better job of this, so when they came available I would usually have pointed people there and see what kinds of questions they still had.
[1]: http://www.nrg4u.com/
[2]: http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html