On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 06:25:10PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote: > > I can't imagine that the University of Cambridge > > (UK) would use a mere toy MTA that is incapable of handling a very > > significant load. > > By such sloppy reasoning, uw-imap would be an excellent, performant and > powerful IMAP server. > > And we all know it isn't. Well, if you stick to *only* that reasoning, sure. However, there are some facts about uw-imap that aren't true for exim. The "release management" of uw-imap certainly leaves something to be desired (if you look for the upstream source you know what I mean). Additionally, uw-imap has history of poor security, which is not the case with exim (despite Craig's claims that this is purely due to "luck"). Additionally, as others have pointed out, exim is used at a number of large sites aside from the site that developed it. One that hasn't yet been mentioned is python.org. A representative of that site spoke at the MIT Spam Confernece in February and, among other things, mentioned Exim4's feature set (ACLs in particular) as being a big part of what allowed them to do the kind of filtering that they do. noah
Attachment:
pgpVXnKrO8O9t.pgp
Description: PGP signature