[CentOS] Re: Kind of OT: internal imap server

Feizhou feizhou at graffiti.net
Thu Aug 31 03:18:57 UTC 2006


Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 17:04 -0400, William L. Maltby wrote:
> 
>>> I see flames!!!
>>>
>>> I wish I could find an UNBIASED comparison of the main MTA's.
>>> I just seem to find ones that slant to the one that just happens to be used by
>>> the writer.
>> Not possible? Those who bother to reply have probably had a variety of
>> experience and settled on what they thought was best for their
>> situation. For them to express anything other than recommendations
>> (mostly) for their selection would be .. illogical ... Kirk!
> 
> The problem is that MTA's typically have to mesh with a lot of other
> tools, so you'll see people raving about one vs. the other because of
> some almost-unrelated management wrapper or it's ability to do
> SMTP AUTH against some oddball password database.  Also, if you are
> looking for long experience, sendmail is pretty much the only one that
> has been around for what I'd call a long time - but you can't really
> compare its capabilities before the milter interface stabilized with
> the current version.   A lot of people got things working with qmail
> or postfix and haven't looked at the new capabilities of sendmail with
> MimeDefang as a milter.
> 

maybe because they don't like the idea of perl as an inbetween. how 
large are your sendmail processes?

sendmail's fork a process per connection + perl in some situations make 
people have nightmares whereas the same could be done in a much more 
efficient manner especially with postfix. Most probably won't think of 
mysql as an oddball password database. Maybe a cdb one.

sendmail + mimedefang is overrated. Now that postfix 2.3 is the stable 
line now...postfix + mimedefang will probably be interesting depending 
on how it is done...



More information about the CentOS mailing list