Le jeudi 24 fÃvrier 2005 Ã 16:35 -0500, Chuck R. Anderson a Ãcrit : >On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 11:45:15AM -0800, Kenneth Porter wrote: >> There seems to be a lot of dissatisfaction with sendmail in the call to >> replace it with Exim or Postfix, but I didn't see any specifics about why >> people object to it. Anyone care to give details? > >In my environment, on 99% of all systems, I've never needed anything >but a simple queue-to-smarthost mail sending daemon, with no receive >functionality at all. Therefore, I don't care which mail daemon is >included, as long as it can do that and supports some type of >/etc/aliases file. I'd actually prefer to see a simple ssmtp-like >program, but ssmtp doesn't meet those needs (it doesn't queue, doesn't >expand local aliases). > >On the 1 or 2 systems that do need a full mail server, our mail admins >roll their own builds/installs of sendmail anyway. Funny I just wrote the same thing (and I do think they are wrong btw, but then they did chose sendmail in the first place) -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
