David F. Skoll wrote:
I'm not trying to say that MIMEDefang is better or worse than Mailscanner. I was just trying to objectively (as much as possible!) compare their behaviours under different load conditions.
And I would like to second that statement. I've used both quite a bit in both home environments and in mission critical production environments. I don't think MailScanner is an inferior package. With one exception (the order in which it does its checks) it is VERY good at attacking the anti-virus/anti-spam problem with the strategy it uses. It's just not the strategy I prefer.
MIMEDefang is _also_ VERY good at attacking that problem with its own strategy. It's just not the same strategy that MailScanner uses. And, clearly, I prefer MIMEDefang's strategy.
The one thing I would say is a weakness with MIMEDefang is that, as Scott suggests, there's a little bit of a learning curve if you want to strike out on your own. I've been writing a mimedefang-filter that has an extensive set of "on/off switches" and "config variables" at the start. With input from multiple people, that might make an interesting way to soften the learning curve (and make it all more usable for non-experts in trying to switch on and off different behaviors).
But the other side of that coin is: if you need that kind of hand-holding, you might be better off paying for canit-pro. It uses MIMEDefang at its core (right? I didn't misinterpret that?), and wraps around that a support/etc. package. I'm willing to bet that it ends up doing a lot of that kind of "softened learning curve" stuff for you.
_______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
