Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 17:04 -0400, William L. Maltby wrote:
I see flames!!!
I wish I could find an UNBIASED comparison of the main MTA's.
I just seem to find ones that slant to the one that just happens to be used by
the writer.
Not possible? Those who bother to reply have probably had a variety of
experience and settled on what they thought was best for their
situation. For them to express anything other than recommendations
(mostly) for their selection would be .. illogical ... Kirk!
The problem is that MTA's typically have to mesh with a lot of other
tools, so you'll see people raving about one vs. the other because of
some almost-unrelated management wrapper or it's ability to do
SMTP AUTH against some oddball password database. Also, if you are
looking for long experience, sendmail is pretty much the only one that
has been around for what I'd call a long time - but you can't really
compare its capabilities before the milter interface stabilized with
the current version. A lot of people got things working with qmail
or postfix and haven't looked at the new capabilities of sendmail with
MimeDefang as a milter.
maybe because they don't like the idea of perl as an inbetween. how
large are your sendmail processes?
sendmail's fork a process per connection + perl in some situations make
people have nightmares whereas the same could be done in a much more
efficient manner especially with postfix. Most probably won't think of
mysql as an oddball password database. Maybe a cdb one.
sendmail + mimedefang is overrated. Now that postfix 2.3 is the stable
line now...postfix + mimedefang will probably be interesting depending
on how it is done...
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
