[CentOS] Which imapd?
craigwhite at azapple.com
Mon Oct 24 14:40:09 UTC 2005
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 10:21 -0400, Chris Mauritz wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 15:52 +0400, jean-sebastien Hubert wrote:
> >>The problem is in fact "postfix", there is no mysql support by default
> >>(in RHAS4) , but the rpm is simple to rebuild.
> >For the record, there is a postfix in the centosplus repo that has mysql
> >support built in.
> And it works well. I've been using postfix since 1998-ish and haven't
> even considered going back to sendwhale since. Postfix is faster (by a
> rather wide margin) and much easier to maintain. And now I don't have
> to speak in tongues (M4) to edit my config files. 8-)
Really? Did you have some empirical evidence for this performance
difference or was this a subjective conclusion by someone what
apparently never got the m4 macro concept down?
I use both sendmail and postifx and think that both have their strengths
and weaknesses and never saw m4 as a problem, in fact, I think it is one
of sendmail's greatest strengths. I never noticed a performance
difference either. It's awfully easy to configure and maintain. Postfix
has more granularity of configuration options.
I think that if your notions of sendmail and postfix were widely held,
that few would use sendmail any longer.
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
More information about the CentOS