Les Mikesell wrote: > Christopher Chan wrote: > >> >> >>> Wasn't the last bug found and fixed 5 or 6 years ago? >>> >>> >>> >> Which is great. Just saying that if there is one still lurking around, >> the current model of operation might still be vulnerable. >> > > That was a joke, since you can never know when the last bug is found, The last bug is found when the software is sundowned. Isn't that one of the axioms of software development? > but I'm > comfortable with old code where you know at least some of the bugs have been > fixed. > > > >>> I've been using it with sendmail for many years. Postfix has only recently >>> added milter support and only very recently made it good enough to work with >>> mimedefang. I don't know if it does the session multiplexing as efficiently - >>> maybe... >>> >>> >>> >> I was the under the impression that it was mimedefang that handled that >> and not sendmail? In any case, postfix has long had very good multiplexing. >> > > MimeDefang multiplexes the client calls to the backend handlers, but the model > was designed around sendmail. It might happen to work as well with postfix. > > >> Ho hum. I do not know why you keep insisting that letting mimedefang >> handle say lookups to mysql and perform decisions based on those is >> faster than if sendmail had native support. It is after all, one less >> layer to going through and not run in something that is interpreted. >> > > It's not faster for that operation, but compared to database lookups a couple > more CPU instructions aren't significant and it is more powerful. What you get > is a point where you can do any additional operations if you want, regardless of > whether the MTA author considered it or not. And, in cases where the program > you want to access isn't an already running daemon like mysql, you get a way to > run it that doesn't need a 1:1 relationship to the mailer processes. > > >