Re: exim or postfix
On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 02:02:35PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk> [2004.11.07.1226 +0100]:
> > exim4 and postfix, depending on the machine, and who origionally set it
> > up. New machines are getting exim4 because it is far more flexible and
> > powerful that postfix (in my experience).
>
> Well, my last tests have shown postfix to be more performant by
> about a factor of 1.6. In addition, there is the single setuid
> binary thing about exim.
>
> You are right that exim has a lot more features than postfix.
> However, are they needed? To me, exim tries to be more than an MTA,
> which is why I surely prefer postfix.
I use a fair chunk of them, so yes, I'd say they are. ACLs and the sheer
power of the router config wins me over everytime. I work for a small
ISP so the more flexible the solution, the better for us. As new things
come up, and new unthought of problems arrise, I find that not having to
go outside the server setup for large groups of users is rather useful.
Coupled with rather powerful database access, exim4 just makes my life a
lot easier. There have been some very simple things that I've needed to
find solutions to with postfix in the past which I ended up having to do
with procmail that I can now deal with in ~ 3 lines in the exim config.
Then, I've always prefered exim, I like having control at my finger
tips, and things to do what I expect :)
Just out of interest, were your tests exim3 or exim4 vs postfix. FWICT
there's been a lot of work gone in to exim4, and it does seem to be
faster than exim3, I haven't done a straight speed comparison between
postfix and exim4, though.
Thanks,
--
Brett Parker
web: http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/
email: iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk
Reply to: