On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 00:19, Doncho N. Gunchev wrote: > On 2004-11-02 (Tuesday) 04:48, Z wrote: > > I don't like sendmail myself, but postfix is pretty complex as well. > Not that complex. I spent about a week to get sendmail working > almost the way I wanted it to. With postfix I can make much more > complicated things in a few hours (and it's not only me)... Because you know Postfix, and don't know sendmail. With m4 sendmail is not so difficult to configure. > I want to mention that postfix's security record is much better, Not true. Just look to the past two years. The historical security record of sendmail is poor, but to compare it with the security record of tools that does not even exists when those security holes appeared is not fair. Of course if I code tomorrow "foomail" will have a better security record than Postfix. > it is faster and eats less resources too Did you benchmarked this, or are those simply your intuitions ? I readed third party benchmarks of sendmail vs Postfix vs Qmail, and Postfix had the worst results. I also readed benchmarks from Postfix advocates and Postfix had the best results. You can find this benchmark in lots of Postfix sites, the same benchmark I mean. But well, what I'd like to ask is: What's wrong with current fedora's MTA management ? You can use Postfix, you can use sendmail, you can switch betwen them ... What's the problem then ? Are you advocating to delete sendmail ?? Are you proposing any other MTA management scheme better than current fedora's one ? If you'll not do it, this thread is simply a waste of time. -- Iago Rubio
