Alexander Dalloz wrote:
>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.
>
>
You may not see that. I do and thats just my opinion, I'm entitled to it.
>
>
>>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.
>
>
>
Ditto for mailscanner as it is written in perl too. BTW, I dont want to
get involved in coding, so the "implement things of my own" is not a
nice feature for me.
>>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?
>
>
>
I'm not sure if it's a requirement. I use sendmail with split queue and
I cant see why thats a problem. What was the serious warning ?
>>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.
>
>
>
I know mimedefang is still being developed, but it doesnt seem to have
the same intesity of development as mailscanner. That may be either a
good or a bad thing. I see it as a good thing.
>>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.
>
>
>
For me its all about how the product feels. Mailscanner feels
professional, mimedefang doesnt. Simple. Again its just my opinion.
>>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?
>
>
>
Well, to get any sort of quarantining happening I had to hack some perl
subroutines, this becomes and administrative nightmare with respect to
upgrades etc. Again, I *dont* want to be a coder !
>>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.
>
>
>
Combine mailscanner with mailwatch and you have a very nice complete
solution with personal quarantime management etc.
>>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.
>
>
>
Ditto for mailscanner if you are running with sendmail, which I am. I
use the greylisting milter.
>>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.
>
>
>
I think you are missing my point. if the incoming mail passes, lets
say, 'access' and 'user' tests then you're going to receive it , what
good does it do rejecting it now if you have already wasted the time and
bandwidth in receiving it ? If its spam, mark it as such and put it in
the relevant folder or delete it. No need for a bounce, which in all
reality is not likely to work anyways as most return addresses are false.
>>Mailscanner runs as a daemon too.
>>
>>
>
>MimeDefang uses embedded Perl code and is really fast.
>
>
>
See above, mailscanner is perl too and very fast. It is also multi
process (like apache) not necessarily multi threadedso it can take
advantage of multiple CPUS. From memory, mimedefang is single process
and can only process one mail at a time although I could well be wrong.
>>Bards.
>>
>>
>
>Alexander
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>CentOS mailing list
>CentOS@xxxxxxxxxxx
>http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
>
Cheers.
