Sandy Drobic wrote: > What were the features that differed the most in implementation or > performance? > Our look at qmail was some years ago so it's getting a bit fuzzy now. ISTR that qmail seemed to be full of gratuitous differences in the interface with no tangible benefit. I won't deny that it seemed smaller and cleaner than sendmail, but the message store by inode was one deal breaker, as I mentioned. Also ISTR that we would have needed thousands of alias files to do what we were doing in sendmail.
> > I would also like to see some test results done on the same hardware and > the same base of testmails. > Well, from memory (this was several years ago) we had 2 identical linux test machines, rather modest, hp desktop class hardware as I remember. One was running sendmail, the other postfix, default configs. We fed them both with a mail spool of a few thousand messages and the difference was significant. The postfix box finished processing and delivering the messages in a few minutes. At this point, the sendmail box was thrashing, with a load average around 40. It finally finished about half an hour later. That one test settled the postfix-vs-sendmail debate for me. Joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
