On Friday 08 October 2010 17:09:53 Ron Guerin wrote: > Allen wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 13:32 -0400, Ron Guerin wrote: > >> Allen wrote: > >>> In the other replies to your post, sendmail has been denounced. I don't > >>> have the knowledge or experience with MTA's that the other responders > >>> have. However, I will offer this: > >>> > >>> You say you run Fedora servers. I run Fedora 13 on my desktop, > >>> installed from DVD. Sendmail is pre-installed. Check your services to > >>> see if it is enabled. > >> > >> You sure about that? Fedora switched to Postfix as the default install > >> a really long time ago. Like maybe last millennium long ago. Everyone > >> has a program called "sendmail", but that's not "Sendmail", it's just a > >> compatibility wrapper. > >> > >> - Ron > > > > I thought Fedora was using sendmail based on: > > > > 1. My daily logwatch report includes a section on sendmail. It reports 2 > > messages being sent. > > > > 2. When I list my services, sendmail is listed. > > > > I don't dispute your assertion that it's actually postfix. Just for my > > education, how would I confirm that postfix is my MTA? (beyond just > > checking that a postfix rpm is installed). I'm curious how the OP knew > > that it was actually postfix on his Fedora server and not sendmail. > > I'm engaging you in a bit of self-education really. If Fedora switched > back to Sendmail, it's news to me, and kind of horrific news at that. I > can't speak for the OP, but problems with "postdrop", wherever he saw > this, is a pretty good indicator that he's running Postfix. > > Any chance you specifically asked for Sendmail when you did your install? > > Also, MTAs do not play nice together willingly (even if it's multiple > instances of the same one).
I don't doubt that this is likely true in general, but I've run multiple instances of Exim4, even with separate config files and using different ports between the instances (but the same IP address), and that worked fine. Later I was able to be more clever and merged it all to a single config file and got the one listening daemon to listen on multiple ports with a config option -- and I did that simply because it's cleaner and easier to understand and debug. If you're wondering how multiple Exim4 daemons could possibly all write to the same log file, well, the same is true for every Exim4 process that gets forked off into a thread for each mail transfer. > Take it from someone who's run three of them on the same server. If there's > a distro that knows how to handle multiple MTAs, I'd also like to hear about > that, so it's a pretty safe bet that you have one, and only one installed. I've never tried to run multiple *different* MTAs at the same time -- that I can imagine being ugly and unpleasant, because there are differences in logging between MTAs among other things. And I can see several other problems with the idea -- the 'mailq' command would have contention for more than one MTA, so you'd have to install the 2nd MTA in a different path and specify the path to the executables in the init scripts as well as when you want to run commands... yeah, I can see that being ugly. -- Chris -- Chris Knadle [email protected] _______________________________________________ Mid-Hudson Valley Linux Users Group http://mhvlug.org http://mhvlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mhvlug Upcoming Meetings (6pm - 8pm) MHVLS Auditorium Nov 3 - Open Source Hardware: Bugs, Beagles and Beyond Dec 1 - IBM's Open Client Deployment Jan 5 - Building a Comunity Site with Drupal
