correct • elegant • free

△ comp.mail.* △

◅ SMTP specification

qmail ▻


In article <5c66cp$>,
Jason Matthews <> wrote:
>[qmail] is probably by far more resource intsensive then sendmail.

This counts as ludicrous unsubstantiated guess of the week.

>                                                                   I do
>not see the point in breaking one large program up into several little

No?  Try reading the SECURITY document in the qmail distribution for
one reason to do this.

Try reading anything on the Unix tools approach for another.

>          It just means more fork() and exec() calls. exec() can be
>rather expensive.

Any Unix system worthy of the name can fork() and exec() small programs
extremely quickly.  All the components of qmail pass the "PDP test"
(text < 64k, data < 64k).  Easily.

Here's sendmail, stripped...

    ----------  3 root     bin  245760 Jul 17  1996 sendmail

And here are all the parts of qmail that are used to transfer an
inbound SMTP message to a local user.

    -rwxr-xr-x  1 root    qmail  32768 Jan 21 14:38 qmail-alias
    -rwxr-xr-x  1 root    qmail  16384 Jan 21 14:38 qmail-clean
    -rwxr-xr-x  1 root    qmail  20480 Jan 21 14:38 qmail-lspawn
    -rwsr-xr-x  1 qmailq  qmail  20480 Jan 21 14:38 qmail-queue
    -rwxr-xr-x  1 root    qmail  45056 Jan 21 14:38 qmail-send
    -rwxr-xr-x  1 root    qmail  28672 Jan 21 14:38 qmail-smtpd
    -rwxrwxr-x  1 root    bin    24576 Oct 10 16:08 tcpserver

The *total* size of these 7 qmail binaries is less than the sendmail

Tim Goodwin   | "A language needs both intestines and guts." -- Larry Wall

Original headers:

From: (Tim Goodwin)
Subject: Re: The SENDMAIL REMOTE ROOT exploit...
Date: 23 Jan 1997 15:57:28 GMT
Organization: UUNET PIPEX
Message-ID: <5c81p8$>
References: <>
  <5c5pt9$> <5c66cp$>

△ comp.mail.* △

◅ SMTP specification

qmail ▻