Re: a couple of postfix questions
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 06:35:47PM -0900, W.D.McKinney wrote:
> > > To each his own though and as I always say, pick a horse and learn to
> > > ride. :-)
> >
> > yes, but it's generally better to pick a good horse rather than a three-legged,
> > half-blind bad-tempered mule that is well past retirement age.
> >
> > craig
>
> Hmm, meaning Hotmail, Yahoo and others run three legged mules ? :-)
yes.
the fact that some large sites run a particular piece of software isn't
terribly significant.
huge companies like Microsoft run Windows, but that doesn't in any way mean
that Windows isn't a huge steaming POS.
and many large mail sites still use sendmail. ditto.
they either don't know any better or it would take too much effort and/or cause
too many problems to change that it's not worth it.
> "Bloated" means overweight, non essential and not availble to chuck out
> the window up here.
it's stretching the imagination way beyond credibility to call postfix in any
way "bloated".
even with all the extra features (many of which are *essential* these days),
postfix still out-performs qmail in every way. in fact, some of the extra
features help it to outperform qmail.
> "Rock Solid" means it's been so long long since we needed to make a
> change, it's easy to forget how.
the fact that a) qmail makes it hard to make changes, and b) qmail doesn't even
support many of the things required in a modern MTA, means that you have no
choice but to ignore important things like backscatter and recipient
validation.
that's not a feature, that's a bug.
that doesn't mean you *SHOULD* ignore them, it means that the software you choose
to use makes it impossible to do anything about them.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: