On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 10:54 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 19:18 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > >Ok, I consider myself a "newbie" when it comes to MTAs. > > > >I currently run sendmail, but I've done as little as possible to get it > >working. I have no spam filtering at SMTP, no auto-sorting of messages > >into folders, basically nothing more than "get the mail to the spool". > > Sounds like you're a reasonably good test candidate; thanks for > volunteeering. Ok, so far I'm finding exim to be much better than sendmail. The default exim.conf file is heavily documented and I only had to set 2 lines in order to get the equivalent functionality that I did with sendmail. The only suggestion I have for the default config file is to use the defered_ok switch on the malware and spam ACL entries. I uncommented the acl_smtp_data = acl_check_content line and my server promptly started rejecting mail because I don't have sophie installed. If defered_ok had been used, the mail would have come through just fine. Remember, we're looking at this from a newbie point of view. Getting email is always better than rejecting everything when it's a setup type issue. > > If you have time, please could you also try the same with postfix? And > if your own setup isn't very interesting, pick some other tasks like > configuring mailman etc. to amuse yourself. I'll try and take a look at postfix in the next day or two. Probably tomorrow since my one user will be gone most of the evening :). > > Like I said -- I'm far more adamant that sendmail should go, than I am > that Exim should be its replacement. I just happen to think that Exim is > a better choice. I'd have to agree that exim is better than sendmail from a usability standpoint. It was easier to configure, and the default config file already has some of the features I'm looking for. Unless postfix proves to be even better, I'll probably be sticking with exim. josh
