Re: default MTA
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 19:32:08, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> On 28/05/13 18:53, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 May 2013, Arno Töll wrote:
> >> Why not consider something light, better suited for most systems which
> >> need nothing but a sendmail binary which is suited to relay to a
> >> real(tm) mail-server and deliver local mail and does not involve lots
> >> of configuration and/or listening ports?
> >
> > nullmailer or similar can do this fairly well. You really only need to
> > have 1) configured the remote smart host 2) a remote e-mail address to
> > send all local mail to.
>
> We already (I believe) ship exim4-daemon-light as default MTA. I don't
> know how much lighter are the alternatives like dma or nullmailer.
>
> I tried both, and I ended going back to exim4-daemon-light because of
> the problems I had with them (#686164 #697871 and #329192).
Similarly, a while back I tried using the ssmtp package (on an embedded
system) and ran into problems because it doesn't spool messages, so any
sending failure (such as are caused by greylisting) causes messages to get
lost.
> So I'm not sure if is worth the effort changing the default MTA.
>
>
> Does anybody recommend any light MTA other than this ones?
The only reason I know of to run something lighter than exim4-daemon-light is
if you need an MTA on an embedded system. Embedded systems are a special case
because local storage is a premium, and the local storage is likely flash
which has limited rewrite cycles. Even here my preferred solution here is to
increase the local storage enough to run exim4-daemon-light, because that's
been reliable for me.
-- Chris
--
Chris Knadle
Chris.Knadle@coredump.us
GPG Key: 4096R/0x1E759A726A9FDD74
Reply to: