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: > >[snip] > > > > > > > >>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. > > > >[snip] > > > > > > > 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. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.