RE: [gentoo-dev] RE: [gentoo-user] Sendmail

On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Austad, Jay wrote:

>
> Sendmail has a long long history of security holes, it runs as root, it
> spawns a single process which can be a bottleneck under high loads
> (especially with a single cpu box), and it's a pain to configure and manage.
> That whole m4 config thing really sucks.
>
> Postfix has almost no history of security holes (except for a DoS attack
> awhile back), it runs as a normal user and can be chrooted for more
> security, it runs multiple processes for outgoing and incoming mail, and
> administration can be done completely through the postconf command with no
> editing of config files (which makes it great for clustering and making the
> same changes across all boxes with a single command).  You can remove
> messages from the running queue.  And it's extremely fast.
>
> Qmail is fast.  But, after using it for over a year on about 12 different
> boxes I've replaced it with postfix.  Qmail used to be faster than postfix,
> but this is no longer the case.  It's a pain to administer, logging sucks
> bigtime, any modifications must be done as a patch because of DJB's screwed
> up licensing scheme.  Qmail touches the disk about 3 times more than
> postfix, so if you have slow disks or a ton of mail, disk i/o will most
> likely be your bottleneck here (actually, on most mailservers disk IO is the
> bottleneck).
>
> I haven't used sendmail in about 2 years.  After switching from qmail to
> postfix about 3 months ago, my life is much much easier.
>
> I don't want to start a flame war, but I'm sure this probably will.  :)
>

Ok, I believe this answers my question. I just wanted more reasons than
only sendmail==devil.

Thanks,
Paul

-- 
  ___
 /~~~\  | Paul de Vrieze
| O-O | | Student of information management and technology
|  _  | | Mail: Paul@××××××××.net
 \___/  | Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net