Bojan Smojver <bojan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > David Woodhouse <dwmw2 <at> infradead.org> writes: > > If we ship a fully-fledged MTA as default, then Exim seems to make most > > sense. > > [..snip..] > > > But again, there's an > > advantage to having a single tool which can provide the _full_ range of > > functionality from low end to high end without the user ever having to > > throw one tool away and start learning a new one from scratch because > > they want to do something which the one they're currently using can't > > handle. > > Never used Exim, so I'm not really sure how much truth is in the author's > statement: > > "The bottom line is that Exim does not perform particularly well in > environments where the queue regularly gets very large. It was never > designed for this; deliveries from the queue were always intended to be > 'exceptions' rather than the norm." I have a machine here (FallbackMX for our mailing list handler, will probably do the same duty for our regular mailservers soon) where the queue is normally around 2000 messages, with highs in the low 4000s. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
