Re: Hamm: Exim + Chos standard?
On 14 Jun 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
> Christoph Lameter <clameter@waterf.org> writes:
>
> >
> > It might be good if we would replace smail in hamm with exim. Exim should
> > be the standard mailer for hamm:
>
> Exim doesn't provide UUCP capabilities *at all*, thus it is rather
> useless for sites that use UUCP (like me). Right now, I am using
> sendmail. (What, BTW, is the reason for not using sendmail?)
Well, for one thing exim (and smail) are a hell of a lot easier to
configure than sendmail. That was what originally moved me towards exim
at work - I really didn't want to muck about fixing numerous broken
sendmail setups when in far less time I could just switch all the machines
over to exim with a more capable configuration that actually worked
properly. :-) This of course has nothing to do with Linux per se; these
were all SGI boxes, but it's why I initially got interested in exim. I
then made the debian package since I wanted the same MTA on all the
systems I administer. I am pleased to see that exim is gaining some
popularity. I shall expend some effort over the next few days in
correcting some of the outstanding bugs in the package; I have been
rather busy of late fighting with Silicon Graphics over broken hardware...
Tim.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
T J R Cutts Tel: +44 1223 333596
Dept. of Biochemistry, Tennis Court Rd., Fax: +44 1223 766002
Cambridge, CB2 1QW, UK
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: