On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 10:21 -0400, Chris Mauritz wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 15:52 +0400, jean-sebastien Hubert wrote:
> >[snip]
> >
> >
> >
> >>The problem is in fact "postfix", there is no mysql support by default
> >>(in RHAS4) , but the rpm is simple to rebuild.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >For the record, there is a postfix in the centosplus repo that has mysql
> >support built in.
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >
>
>
> And it works well. I've been using postfix since 1998-ish and haven't
> even considered going back to sendwhale since. Postfix is faster (by a
> rather wide margin) and much easier to maintain. And now I don't have
> to speak in tongues (M4) to edit my config files. 8-)
----
Really? Did you have some empirical evidence for this performance
difference or was this a subjective conclusion by someone what
apparently never got the m4 macro concept down?
I use both sendmail and postifx and think that both have their strengths
and weaknesses and never saw m4 as a problem, in fact, I think it is one
of sendmail's greatest strengths. I never noticed a performance
difference either. It's awfully easy to configure and maintain. Postfix
has more granularity of configuration options.
I think that if your notions of sendmail and postfix were widely held,
that few would use sendmail any longer.
Craig
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
