Les Mikesell wrote:
> 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,
The last bug is found when the software is sundowned.
Isn't that one of the axioms of software development?
> 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.
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
