Since we've breached into the always divisive unix sysadmin topics of
MTA's - I'll throw my two cents in:
Folks are always panning Sendmail for it configuration complexity,
security holes, and whatever the trolls (not here, elsewhere) throw at
it.
Don't believe it: configuration is easy, especially in installations
where only one MTA server is required for a domain, & debugging and
testing are pervasively supported. Security problems are discovered and
patched quickly.
Sendmail is very very powerful and efficient at its task as an MTA, and
supports just about any kind of configuration you need. There are many
excellent books on the care and feeding of Sendmail.
Plus, if you need to weird contortions in your configuration, paid
support is available.
I'm not going to deride exim though!
-lee
On Feb 22, 2005, at 2:46 PM, Dan Shoop wrote:
At 11:07 AM -0500 2/22/05, Steve Rieger wrote:
Qmail is another road, but in my opinion qmail will start showing its
seams
when being overloaded.
Qmail is very heavy on the concept of queues, it's even worse than
postfix in this regard. And it's a quirky as it's opinionated author.
For those who think I'm opinionated they've seen nothing like this...
Qmail does scale, but it's sh*tload of queues and one line files
drives me nuts.
I prefer exim. It's one single image, no queues, and very Apache-like
in both it's processing and its single config file. It also features
very robust ACLs (that for the most part eliminate the need for
SpamAssassin and ClamAV), embedded perl, and can reject messages
before accepting them (unlike Qmail and Postfix) so the spam never
even enters your system.
