Craig White wrote:
>>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?
>
>
Yes, I did head to head comparisons about 5 years go on the same
hardware. Postfix was the fastest, qmail was next, and sendmail was
slowest. I believe I've also seen similar benchmarks posted on the
net. I had to do independent testing to satisfy a skeptical consulting
cilent.
>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.
>
>
I think most people that still use sendmail do so because it's been a
defacto standard for so many years and they're not interested in
learning a new playbook for another program (kinda like why I still use
Emacs...wink)...not because it has any speed or security advantage. I'm
happy to not have to deal with cryptic M4 config files any longer.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with CentOS. I'd be happy to continue
this chat offline.
Cheers,
