Re: Postfix as default MTA?
anders@arnholm.nu (Anders Arnholm) wrote on 29.06.99 in <[🔎] 19990629164048.262B552080@laurana.arnholm.nu>:
> 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,
You mean several people have presented claims but *no evidence at all*
that postfix may be better than exim in some points. I might just as
easily claim the opposite.
> 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)."
Facts: Exim anti-spam, rewrite, etc. configuration is extremely flexible.
Of course it's a drop-in replacement for sendmail. It definitely supports
UUCP. And of course it can handle SMTP servers that need to be limited to
n recipients (where n can be 1).
One of the Exim sites I admin (mail.westfalen.de) originally had a pretty
complicated Smail configuration (including UUCP rmail- and bsmtp-based
clients, single-user and site POP clients, forwarding-to-site and
forwarding-to-user client sites, rewriting multi-level bang addresses to
something reasonable [oops sorry, Smail didn't do that, only Exim], and so
on). When I changed over to Exim, the configuration became much easier to
understand, I could eliminate a number of bugs nobody had ever noticed,
and add a number of features that I wouldn't have even dreamed of with
Smail.
> > Which Exim is.
>
> It's only "solid" in small on loaded enviroments, postfix perfoms, i.m.h.o.
Evidence?
Where are the numbers?
And I don't mean numbers showing postfix is good, but numbers showing it
is *better*.
MfG Kai
Reply to: