Am Fr, den 25.03.2005 schrieb Barads um 10:09:
> Dont get me wrong, I like mimedefang but mailscanner is at the next level.
I don't see that.
> Having run mimedefang for a few months and now having run mailscanner
> for a few months I think that mailscanner is superior in the following ways;
>
> Mailscanner has ONE configuration file that controls its behaviour
> spamassasin's behaviour and any virus scanners behaviour. This file is
> very very well commented and makes it easy to configure. Mimedefang had
> me editing perl scripts and adding subroutines etc etc to get it to
> perform in a similar way, not configuration friendly and most of the
> time it seems like a quick hack of a system.
Simplicity at the cost of loss of flexibility. Using MimeDefang you can
implement very nice things your own with just a bit Perl code.
> Mailscanner works with most well known MTAs, sendmail, postfix, exim etc etc
IMHO Mailscanner needs to split the queue. At least in part that wasn't
recommended with Postfix and there even was a serious warning to do so.
Did that change?
> Mailscanner is being actively development and supported. I think
> mimedefang went for several months without an update.
Pure nonsense. MimeDefang is actively developed over it's whole
lifetime. Regularly new releases are coming out. And it is well
"supported" by the developers through the mailing list.
> Mailscanner's documentation is better/more professional than mimedefang's.
I don't share that neither. The website may look more fancy, but where
is the really detailed documentation? Did you ever have a look into "man
5 mimedefang-filter" which is one of the most impressive man pages I
have ever seen.
> Mailscanner's messages, notifications and quarantine hadnling is more
> professional than mimedefang's.
What do you mean with "professional"? I don't get the point. What is
"unprofessional" with MimeDefang's way to inform the mail server
administrator about it's actions?
> IMO Some of mimedefangs features are not very friendly, for example, the
> 'unquarantine'.
Well ok, that could be better in a way to be handier.
> And, given that my mailscanner configuration is running in conjunction
> with sendmail, I too have the access features of sendmail, greylists and
> RBLs !
No contra for MimeDefang. Even the flexibility of MimeDefang is
outstanding regarding to combine the other regular Sendmail/milter
features. Means, you can let MimeDefang react on detections / added mail
header tags by other tools in the whole mail stream.
> As far as rejecting spam during the SMTP session is concerned.........
> it seems cool at first but I dont know if there is any *real* benefit it
> as you have to receive all of the message anyway before determining that
> it is spam, so why not just receive it and tag it then ? No need for a
> bounce.
Of course there is a big real benefit from this. Once you accepted a
mail your mail system has to handle it. Rejecting it in the data process
is a very important criteria. Btw. rejecting here means not bouncing,
simply giving an error DSN to the sender (E)SMTP server.
> Mailscanner runs as a daemon too.
MimeDefang uses embedded Perl code and is really fast.
> Bards.
Alexander
--
Alexander Dalloz | Enger, Germany | GPG http://pgp.mit.edu 0xB366A773
legal statement: http://www.uni-x.org/legal.html
Fedora Core 2 GNU/Linux on Athlon with kernel 2.6.10-1.770_FC2smp
Serendipity 11:28:56 up 8 days, 9:25, load average: 0.20, 0.14, 0.10
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Url : http://lists.caosity.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050325/01b2abfa/attachment.bin
