I have two CentOS-6.4 servers, in different places. I am running postfix/amavis on one, and sendmail/procmail on the other. I don't recall having any difficulty setting up sendmail many years ago using sendmail.mc . But I found postfix very complicated to setup last year. (It's working fine now.)
I recall that when I asked for advice one person advised me to read 2 books on postfix, and another advised me to pay someone to set it up.
I asked why postfix was preferable, but didn't any convincing reply. The general response was along the lines that it was the "modern" way.
Having looked into postfix/amavis a little further, it seems to me to involve excessively complicated processes (at least for a simple home server) with email going along spaghetti-like routes.
Am I alone in this view?
I think "sane" people use exim nowadays.
On 2 November 2013 12:57, Timothy Murphy gayleard@eircom.net wrote:
I have two CentOS-6.4 servers, in different places. I am running postfix/amavis on one, and sendmail/procmail on the other. I don't recall having any difficulty setting up sendmail many years ago using sendmail.mc . But I found postfix very complicated to setup last year. (It's working fine now.)
I recall that when I asked for advice one person advised me to read 2 books on postfix, and another advised me to pay someone to set it up.
I asked why postfix was preferable, but didn't any convincing reply. The general response was along the lines that it was the "modern" way.
Having looked into postfix/amavis a little further, it seems to me to involve excessively complicated processes (at least for a simple home server) with email going along spaghetti-like routes.
Am I alone in this view?
-- Timothy Murphy e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 02/11/13 12:57, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I have two CentOS-6.4 servers, in different places. I am running postfix/amavis on one, and sendmail/procmail on the other. I don't recall having any difficulty setting up sendmail many years ago using sendmail.mc . But I found postfix very complicated to setup last year. (It's working fine now.)
I recall that when I asked for advice one person advised me to read 2 books on postfix, and another advised me to pay someone to set it up.
Which is good advice. Setting up a mail server is a specialist task and you should expect to do some reading around the subject if you have not done it before or are new to Postfix.
I asked why postfix was preferable, but didn't any convincing reply. The general response was along the lines that it was the "modern" way.
I think you are probably asking the wrong people. Red Hat made Postfix the default MTA in RHEL6 and that alone should be reason enough to go with it IMHO unless you have a specific reason to prefer sendmail or something else. I think you would need to address your question to Red Hat.
Having looked into postfix/amavis a little further, it seems to me to involve excessively complicated processes (at least for a simple home server) with email going along spaghetti-like routes.
It's also very flexible which makes it immensely powerful. If all you want to do is accept mail and deliver it then you don't need amavisd-new and can run a simple MTA setup.
Am I alone in this view?
Probably not by a long shot. I would guess there are many sendmail admins out there who have been running their sendmail servers for a very long time and have no intentions of learning something new.
Personally, when I wanted to learn to set up and run a mail server I looked at both sendmail and Postfix and concluded that IMHO the Postfix configs seemed more logical and thus easier to learn to me. I don't expect that to be true for everyone and choice is a wonderful thing :-)
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Timothy Murphy gayleard@eircom.net wrote:
I asked why postfix was preferable, but didn't any convincing reply. The general response was along the lines that it was the "modern" way.
Sendmail was written back in the days of wooden computers and iron programmers and uses a macro language configuration technique designed to be efficient for the computer. Postfix was what you get if you start over with the idea of making it easier for the humans. But, that part only matters if you need to configure it to do something that no one has ever done before. Otherwise you just re-use an existing setup.
On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 10:41:53AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Timothy Murphy gayleard@eircom.net wrote:
I asked why postfix was preferable, but didn't any convincing reply. The general response was along the lines that it was the "modern" way.
Sendmail was written back in the days of wooden computers and iron programmers and uses a macro language configuration technique designed to be efficient for the computer. Postfix was what you get if you start over with the idea of making it easier for the humans. But, that part only matters if you need to configure it to do something that no one has ever done before. Otherwise you just re-use an existing setup.
yes. having found sendmail configuration fairly impenetrable (to me) I've accumulated a set of rules for the sendmail.mc file that do what I need (it's a mail server at home, serves exactly two users) and just copy it to each new system, 'make' it, and voila. but there was some not-inconsiderable pain involved in coming up with the recipes.
On 11/2/2013 1:43 PM, Stephen Harris wrote:
sendmail.mc ? Back in the day all we had (SunOS 4) was the cf files that we had to mangle by hand
now that was some truly scary stuff. the .mc/m4 macro stuff was a latecomer.
On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 04:43:59PM -0400, Stephen Harris wrote:
On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 01:58:33PM -0400, Fred Smith wrote:
I've accumulated a set of rules for the sendmail.mc file that do what
sendmail.mc ? Back in the day all we had (SunOS 4) was the cf files that we had to mangle by hand :-)
yeah. if it weren't for the .mc files I'd probably have committed suicide long ago. :)
On 11/2/2013 8:57 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I have two CentOS-6.4 servers, in different places. I am running postfix/amavis on one, and sendmail/procmail on the other. I don't recall having any difficulty setting up sendmail many years ago using sendmail.mc . But I found postfix very complicated to setup last year. (It's working fine now.)
I recall that when I asked for advice one person advised me to read 2 books on postfix, and another advised me to pay someone to set it up.
I asked why postfix was preferable, but didn't any convincing reply. The general response was along the lines that it was the "modern" way.
Having looked into postfix/amavis a little further, it seems to me to involve excessively complicated processes (at least for a simple home server) with email going along spaghetti-like routes.
Am I alone in this view?
Not at all. Selection of a mail agent borders on a religious topic. I personally am a devout sendmail admin. I have been running sendmail since I was the sysadmin of a network of sun4 pizza boxes back in the 1980's. I even met Eric Allman at a USENIX conference once. I've have given sessions on installing and configuring sendmail at national and international conferences. I once installed sendmail on an IBM Mainframe running Redhat Linux.
Are there better servers? Probably. According to WIkipedia, the only mail servers with more than 10% of the servers on the internet running them are Sendmail, Microsoft Exchange Server, Exim and Postfix, but these are hardly the only ones out there.
In CentOS 6, postfix is the default server. What does that mean? It means that postfix is pre-selected in the anaconda install script. If you want to run something else, and not have to deal with un-installing postfix and installing your own religion then just un-select postfix and select your own when you do the initial install. You know, check the boxes saying you want to edit the packages being installed and make the changes before you do the install.
Let's not get into a religious shouting match here. You know, the my software is better than yours kind of thing. Pick what you are comfortable with and run it. They all do basically the same thing, just in different ways.
Harold
when in doubt; use google mail. :)
On 2 November 2013 15:57, Harold Pritchett harold@uga.edu wrote:
On 11/2/2013 8:57 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I have two CentOS-6.4 servers, in different places. I am running postfix/amavis on one, and sendmail/procmail on the other. I don't recall having any difficulty setting up sendmail many years ago using sendmail.mc . But I found postfix very complicated to setup last year. (It's working fine now.)
I recall that when I asked for advice one person advised me to read 2 books on postfix, and another advised me to pay someone to set it up.
I asked why postfix was preferable, but didn't any convincing reply. The general response was along the lines that it was the "modern" way.
Having looked into postfix/amavis a little further, it seems to me to involve excessively complicated processes (at least for a simple home server) with email going along spaghetti-like routes.
Am I alone in this view?
Not at all. Selection of a mail agent borders on a religious topic. I personally am a devout sendmail admin. I have been running sendmail since I was the sysadmin of a network of sun4 pizza boxes back in the 1980's. I even met Eric Allman at a USENIX conference once. I've have given sessions on installing and configuring sendmail at national and international conferences. I once installed sendmail on an IBM Mainframe running Redhat Linux.
Are there better servers? Probably. According to WIkipedia, the only mail servers with more than 10% of the servers on the internet running them are Sendmail, Microsoft Exchange Server, Exim and Postfix, but these are hardly the only ones out there.
In CentOS 6, postfix is the default server. What does that mean? It means that postfix is pre-selected in the anaconda install script. If you want to run something else, and not have to deal with un-installing postfix and installing your own religion then just un-select postfix and select your own when you do the initial install. You know, check the boxes saying you want to edit the packages being installed and make the changes before you do the install.
Let's not get into a religious shouting match here. You know, the my software is better than yours kind of thing. Pick what you are comfortable with and run it. They all do basically the same thing, just in different ways.
Harold
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Harold Pritchett <harold@...> writes:
On 11/2/2013 8:57 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I have two CentOS-6.4 servers, in different places. I am running postfix/amavis on one, and sendmail/procmail on the other. I don't recall having any difficulty setting up sendmail many years ago using sendmail.mc . But I found postfix very complicated to setup last year. (It's working fine now.)
<SNIP>
Having looked into postfix/amavis a little further, it seems to me to involve excessively complicated processes (at least for a simple home server) with email going along spaghetti-like routes.
Am I alone in this view?
Not at all. Selection of a mail agent borders on a religious topic. I
personally am a devout sendmail admin. I
have been running sendmail since I was the sysadmin of a network of sun4 pizza boxes back in the 1980's. I even met Eric Allman at a
USENIX conference once. I've have given
sessions on installing and configuring sendmail at national and international conferences. I once installed sendmail on an IBM Mainframe
running Redhat Linux.
<SNIP>
Let's not get into a religious shouting match here. You know, the my
software is better than yours kind of
thing. Pick what you are comfortable with and run it. They all do basically the same thing, just in different ways.
Harold
Oh, come on. We haven't had a good religious flame war on the list in a while. I'm sure we can even go off topic and debate vi vs. emacs, which is the best shell, etc.
Back to the original question... I've never found sendmail that difficult and have been running it as my MTA for years. My take is that sendmail lets you do almost anything you could possibly want to do with an MTA and the configuration supports that but most people just want a simple e-mail sender and receiver and it's not at all hard to set up to do that. I think I only have to change/set about half a dozen lines in sendmail.mc to configure a minimal installation and only a few more to have it use some DNS blacklists and spam assassin.
Cheers, Dave
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Timothy Murphy said the following on 02/11/2013 13:57:
Having looked into postfix/amavis a little further, it seems to me to involve excessively complicated processes (at least for a simple home server) with email going along spaghetti-like routes.
For a simple home mail server that routes all the outbound mail to ISP MTA every software is fine, also a SMTP emulator written in Perl :)
If you are the sysadmin of MTAs on the front line and you have a lot of users things change.
When you choose a MTA you must take in account many factors and try to avoid "religion" arguments.
Among such factors: * security * easy (for the SysAdmin in charge, not for EVERY SysAdmin) to manage and configure * active support * security * interoperability with the other components of the mail system (user base, IMAP/POP server, antivirus, antispam, vacation...) * speed * security * log files easy to read to trace mail errors * easy implementation of "new" mail protocol extension (such as TLS)
There are often some sort of "mail ecosystems", that is a group of programs (MTA, IMAP, administration tools, Webmail) that interact nicely one with another.
That said, choosing a MTA is not like casting a vote in a ballot, but making a wise logical decison after an extensive analysis of the situation.
Ciao, luigi
- -- / +--[Luigi Rosa]-- \
To err is human; to really screw things up requires the root password.
-
Andrew Holway -
David G. Miller -
Fred Smith -
Harold Pritchett -
John R Pierce -
Les Mikesell -
Luigi Rosa -
Ned Slider -
Stephen Harris -
Timothy Murphy