Re: [Mailman-Users] Extremely High Membership lists
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:15:17 -0400 Gary Wilson <wilsong@sergievsky.cpmc.columbia.edu> wrote:
From: "J C Lawrence" <claw@cp.net>
I would strongly recommend using either Postfix or Qmail. You are going to have to spend some time tuning your MTA and how you handle your mail spools (batter-backed RAM disks are not a Bad Idea). Running and maintaining a high volume mail server requires particular skills and care no matter the choice of MTA.
What about exim, the default MTA for Debian?
As I've written previously to this list, I'm a big Exim fan. If you check the headers of this message, and any others I write, you'll note Exim Received: headers.
Exim is the installed MTA on all my boxs, and is the MTA I usually recommend for desktop, workstation, and other general use. However, while Exim is a superb performer and has an excellent security history, it is also a monolithic server and thus doesn't have Postfix/QMail's highly compartmentalised and careful security model. Further, while the performance curves for Exim and Postfix/QMail can be made remarkably similar, in __*general*__ without careful tuning and when under high loads, especially very large spools, my experience is that Postfix/QMail are going to sustain and perform better than Exim.
-- J C Lawrence Internet: claw@kanga.nu ----------(*) Internet: coder@kanga.nu ...Honorary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...
-> As I've written previously to this list, I'm a big Exim fan. [...] -> experience is that Postfix/QMail are going to sustain and perform -> better than Exim.
The last couple of posts suggest that Sendmail sucks eggs whencompared to the alternatives. I've also read that Sendmail has a "shaky" security history.
So I'm left wondering: If Sendmail is so inferior, why is it sopopular? Why is it the default MTA on Red Hat and Mandrake, the two most popular Linux distros out there? Does it have some competitive advantage over the other MTAs?
Thanks, Derek
At 3:56 PM -0700 6/28/00, Derek Simkowiak wrote:
The last couple of posts suggest that Sendmail sucks eggs when compared to the alternatives.
Depends.
I've also read that Sendmail has a "shaky" security history.
arguable, depending on whether you're pro- or anti-sendmail.
So I'm left wondering: If Sendmail is so inferior, why is it so popular?
It came first. In fact, until the last couple of years, it was basically the only serious option. People know it. They may not always like it, but they know it and know how to make it work.
I think the security history arguments are questionable -- the main reason there have been so many security issues with sendmail is because it IS the default/only one out there, so everyone pounded on it. And the other MTAs were able to learn from sendmail's mistakes. In reality, sendmail's done a good job of closing out holes when they crop up, and current versions are solid.
it's really easy to walk a minefield if you come last and avoid all of the holes in the ground. sendmail drew the map, and will happily show you its scars.
It's very fashionable to bash sendmail, but sendmail was slogging email around long before anyone else bothered to try. Wtihout sendmail, it's really arguable that the internet would be what it is today.
-- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'"
participants (3)
-
Chuq Von Rospach -
Derek Simkowiak -
J C Lawrence