| 1 |
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Austad, Jay wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> > sendmail == devil |
| 4 |
> > Use postfix. :) |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Care to explain? What's the disadvantage of sendmail except that its |
| 8 |
> harder to configure? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Sendmail has a long long history of security holes, it runs as root, it |
| 11 |
spawns a single process which can be a bottleneck under high loads |
| 12 |
(especially with a single cpu box), and it's a pain to configure and manage. |
| 13 |
That whole m4 config thing really sucks. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Postfix has almost no history of security holes (except for a DoS attack |
| 16 |
awhile back), it runs as a normal user and can be chrooted for more |
| 17 |
security, it runs multiple processes for outgoing and incoming mail, and |
| 18 |
administration can be done completely through the postconf command with no |
| 19 |
editing of config files (which makes it great for clustering and making the |
| 20 |
same changes across all boxes with a single command). You can remove |
| 21 |
messages from the running queue. And it's extremely fast. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Qmail is fast. But, after using it for over a year on about 12 different |
| 24 |
boxes I've replaced it with postfix. Qmail used to be faster than postfix, |
| 25 |
but this is no longer the case. It's a pain to administer, logging sucks |
| 26 |
bigtime, any modifications must be done as a patch because of DJB's screwed |
| 27 |
up licensing scheme. Qmail touches the disk about 3 times more than |
| 28 |
postfix, so if you have slow disks or a ton of mail, disk i/o will most |
| 29 |
likely be your bottleneck here (actually, on most mailservers disk IO is the |
| 30 |
bottleneck). |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I haven't used sendmail in about 2 years. After switching from qmail to |
| 33 |
postfix about 3 months ago, my life is much much easier. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I don't want to start a flame war, but I'm sure this probably will. :) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Jay |
Archives