1 |
On Tuesday 20 April 2010 15:53:01 Harry Putnam wrote: |
2 |
> I think you all are missing something... sendmail is better documented |
3 |
> than any of the other pretenders. |
4 |
|
5 |
One has to understand what the various MTAs out there were built to do, and |
6 |
what their "feature list" is: |
7 |
|
8 |
sendmail comes from ancient days. It was written to be able to route almost |
9 |
any kind of mail using almost any kind of addressing scheme to and from almost |
10 |
any kind of network. So it is quite happy receiving SMTP mail from the |
11 |
internet and routing it to a FidoNet address. To do this, it has to reread |
12 |
it's routing table with every message, therefore .cf was designed to be |
13 |
machine efficient but still use only ASCII characters. Which led to m4 being |
14 |
developed to make it easier, and I've even seen more simple apps that are |
15 |
front ends to m4. After a while you start asking "Wow, is this complexity |
16 |
actually needed?" |
17 |
|
18 |
Postfix was designed to remove the sendmail complexity from a sysadmin's life |
19 |
while still being somewhat familiar. It's claim to fame is the ability to pump |
20 |
enormous amounts of mail down a pipe and keep the routing rules simple. I have |
21 |
two Postfix relays, both of them can deal with 3 million mails a day without |
22 |
breaking a sweat. Let me put that in perspective, it's about 30 mails a |
23 |
second, every second. Postfix is so good at this, I can run them as VMWare |
24 |
virtual machine. |
25 |
|
26 |
exim doesn't fare quite as well as Postfix in the raw throughput department, |
27 |
but it is very very good at giving the sysadmin efficient filtering/routing |
28 |
rules. |
29 |
|
30 |
qmail is, how shall I put this? Something that Dan wrote? Dan likes to find |
31 |
fault in the detail with almost all software and likes to perform experiments |
32 |
to prove himself right. He also likes to do all of this his own way with the |
33 |
result that his stuff is a square peg and you have a round hole. Most |
34 |
sysadmins I know consider the pain of using qmail to not offset the benefit of |
35 |
using qmail, therefore they don't use it. |
36 |
|
37 |
> Now understand, that I am easily the dullest knife in the drawer on |
38 |
> this list even though by unix/linux standards I'm fairly long in the |
39 |
> tooth having started my computing skills in 1996 and broke in on |
40 |
> redhat at that time (using sendmail). I'm sad to say, I'm still a |
41 |
> noob in a vast number of areas. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> I've used sendmail all that time. If I can figure out how to use |
44 |
> it.... It really must not be that hard. At least not hard to find |
45 |
> piles of help on google. |
46 |
|
47 |
Postfix's web site has an enormous amount of documentation on everything |
48 |
related to Postfix. |
49 |
|
50 |
> Admittedly though my usage has always been just a homeboy home lan |
51 |
> administrator so closest I ever come to using sendmail anything like |
52 |
> what its target usage base is, would be a home lan mailhub. |
53 |
> |
54 |
> Unless, I'm terribly misinformed, sendmail is still the most commonly |
55 |
> used mta in the unix world of servers. |
56 |
|
57 |
Yes, you are misinformed. My logs show very little mail being received from |
58 |
sendmail MTAs. There may well be large numbers of ancient sendmail installs |
59 |
out there, but they do not account for a large fraction of the mail being |
60 |
sent. That trophy belongs to Windows zombie bots.... |
61 |
|
62 |
> At least according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sendmail |
63 |
> |
64 |
> Qmail home page says it is the second most common MTA but doesn't say |
65 |
> who is first.... its sendmail... I'm pretty sure. |
66 |
> |
67 |
> About all the snipes concerning hacking sendmail.cf... I'm sure you |
68 |
> are all aware that any hacking needs to happen in sendmail.mc... then |
69 |
> let m4 sort out sendmail.cf. |
70 |
|
71 |
Even a cursory glance at sendmail shows that it was designed in a time with a |
72 |
different mindset and different needs to what we do these days. Sendmail will |
73 |
never escape this legacy because it is what it is and that is it's purpose. |
74 |
|
75 |
It's not as bad as buggy whips, but the same principle is at work. |
76 |
|
77 |
-- |
78 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |