Re: exim: misleading package description?
* Karsten M. Self (kmself@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> on Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 09:16:46PM -0800, Peter Jay Salzman (p@dirac.org) wrote:
> > satan$ dpkg -p exim
> > (snip)
> > Description: Exim Mailer
> > This MTA is rather easier to configure than smail or sendmail.
> > It is a drop-in replacement for sendmail/mailq/rsmtp.
> > Advanced features include the ability to reject connections from
> > known spam sites, and an extremely efficient queue processing
> > algorithm.
> >
> >
> > i'm looking at:
> >
> > Advanced features include the ability to reject connections from
> > known spam sites
> >
> > exim can use rbl to reject msgs from spam sites. but so can every
> > other MTA.
>
I do not have a particularly demanding situation, just my own mail and internal system messages to contend with, so I can't speak for high-volume or complex circumstances. However, I use fetchmail-exim-mutt, without the usual procmail, because the exim filter capability pretty much handles everything. The filtering is not as sophisticated as procmail, but does the job. I have been able to find anti-spam scripts, which seem to work pretty well. Once I got it through my head that I needed to set up the config file properly, it was a piece of cake.
It is not out of beta yet, but version 4 has a lot more included in it, including more sophisticated scripting. If you have time to play before making a commitment, checking it out may be a good thing. The exim-users list is nearly as busy as this one, so there's lots of help.
<snip>
> I think you're looking for a comparative essay on MTAs. That's not my
> specialty. However, a few thoughts off the top on Exim:
>
> - Sane configuration files, particularly compared to Sendmail. I
> _can_ drop onto a box, read, and largely understand, an exim config
> (I don't read the things routinely in my spare time, really). Same
> cannot be said for Sendmail. Other "modern" MTAs (postfix, qmail)
> likely have similar characteristics. Not familiar with them.
>
> - Good performance characteristics. Through friends I hear of exim
> configs which handle high mail loads, certainly higher than you'll
> often hear (anectdotally) exim being supposedly capable of.
>
> - Good security track record. Sendmail's the black sheep here. Exim
> runs as an unprivileged user, and minimizes use of SUID ops.
>
> - Good set of command-line ops. The mail admin can list, query,
> freeze and thaw, and delete, jobs. Commands are largely Sendmail
> compatible.
>
> - Good conformance to standards, both mail and filesystem (qmail loses
> on the latter).
>
> Exim's not the only option out there, but it's a good one.
>
I definitely echo all the above. It's actually pretty easy to work with, and gives you a lot of control.
Cheers
Cam
--
Cam Ellison Ph.D. R.Psych.
From Roberts Creek on B.C.'s incomparable Sunshine Coast
camellison@dccnet.com
cam@fleuryassociates.com
Reply to: