On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 02:40:31AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Brian Nelson (pyro@debian.org) [030715 02:20]: > > Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> writes: > > > postfix has less features than exim4, at least for me. I couldn't do > > > my current setup with postfix. > > > Of course, no one is advocating removing exim from Debian; if you want > > to use it, it would still be available. However, I think postfix would > > be a more suitable default MTA for the reasons above. > > I still don't see any reason to change the default mta to a total > different make. exim4 is the natural sucessor to exim, and has all the > necessary features of a real mta. I have not read any bare fact here > what postfix can do better than exim4, but only more or less loose > claims. And I for myself am conservative and make only small changes > unless there is enough profit from the greater change. And the smaller > change is certainly to take exim4, and I don't see the profit from the > farer change. > > And: Nobody is trying to throw postfix out. It just the question which > mta suits new users best as default, and which has the smoothest > upgrade path. Everyone can install another mta without ado. Upgrade path is not relevant. We are talking about the default MTA for _new_ installations. An existing system being upgraded should keep it's existing MTA, only upgrading to newer released version. For exim, this may mean going from exim3 to exim4. For new installations, why not use postfix? I don't think we are talking about 'sucessors', or upgrade paths - we are talking about the default MTA on new Debian installations, installations of sarge in particular. Can someone post a concise summary of the _technical_ pros/cons of exim4 vs postfix for new installations? Paul Cupis -- paul@cupis.co.uk
Attachment:
pgpNeLh3GDlCo.pgp
Description: PGP signature