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...