Re: Postfix as default MTA?
>>>"Steve Lamb" wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 17:28:34 +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
>
> ><SARCASTIC MODE>
> >Sorry, I assumed that people on this list would be able to understand
> >"universal" as "suitable for most common usages", but obviously I was
> >wrong.
> ></SARCASTIC MODE>
>
> What we have now is suitable for most common usages.
I.m.h.o postfix is more suitable for most cases, serveral reasons why postfix
might be a better choise has been seen to this list. In general, better
security, (at least) as easy to configure, better security, faster, a very
flexible anti-spam, rewrite, etc, confgiuration. Drop in replacement of
sendmail. Even thou I have ent tried it it has suppport for UUCP (As Wietse,
writes "The transport table can be used to send mail to specific sites via
UUCP, or to send mail to a really broken mail system that can handle only
one SMTP connection at a time (yes, such systems exist and people used
to pay real money for them)."
> >Despite your PERIOD, I will answer this one: of course I hope that admins
> >running large mailing lists should be able to change their MTA, but they
> >won't have to if they get a solid one from start.
>
> Which Exim is.
It's only "solid" in small on loaded enviroments, postfix perfoms, i.m.h.o.
better over the whole scope, from my 386sx16/4mb (mail.arnholm.nu) realy large
ISP's, maillist servers. I don't think Exim could do the same think even thou
being one of the better choises in the low end.
> Slink just switched to Exim as the default mailer. Do we really think it
> is needed to change default mailers *again* within 1-2 versions?
Maybe the swith was done to fast, (but seiously) it will hopefully be one more
version out before postfix can take Exim's place.
/ Balp
Reply to: