Christopher Chan wrote:
>
>> Wasn't the last bug found and fixed 5 or 6 years ago?
>>
>>
>
> Which is great. Just saying that if there is one still lurking around,
> the current model of operation might still be vulnerable.
That was a joke, since you can never know when the last bug is found, but I'm
comfortable with old code where you know at least some of the bugs have been
fixed.
>> I've been using it with sendmail for many years. Postfix has only recently
>> added milter support and only very recently made it good enough to work with
>> mimedefang. I don't know if it does the session multiplexing as efficiently -
>> maybe...
>>
>>
>
> I was the under the impression that it was mimedefang that handled that
> and not sendmail? In any case, postfix has long had very good multiplexing.
MimeDefang multiplexes the client calls to the backend handlers, but the model
was designed around sendmail. It might happen to work as well with postfix.
>
> Ho hum. I do not know why you keep insisting that letting mimedefang
> handle say lookups to mysql and perform decisions based on those is
> faster than if sendmail had native support. It is after all, one less
> layer to going through and not run in something that is interpreted.
It's not faster for that operation, but compared to database lookups a couple
more CPU instructions aren't significant and it is more powerful. What you get
is a point where you can do any additional operations if you want, regardless of
whether the MTA author considered it or not. And, in cases where the program
you want to access isn't an already running daemon like mysql, you get a way to
run it that doesn't need a 1:1 relationship to the mailer processes.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
