On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, likot wrote: > > > Sendmail is not scalable. > > If it were, then a lot of heavy SMTP sites would use > > it, and there would > > be no complaints about resource use and delivery > > speed. If it were, then > > there would be no projects like qmail or postfix > > which provide a decent > > alternate SMTP server. > > these things are being addressed :) sendmail now > support smtp pipelining which removes the smtp latency > problem (hopefully) rfc1854 > > http://www.sendmail.org/8.12.0.html :) > > > > > Sendmail is monolithic. > > Sendmail is insecure. > > Sendmail is difficult to configure. > > Sendmail is a pain to maintain. > > Sendmail is not scalable. > > > > Please do not use sendmail. > > okay just to clear things for the new versions of > sendmail > > monolithic - there is an ongoing project to solve this > (or is it included in 8.12?!!?!) > > insecure - read the latest changelog included in the > 8.12 release ( one major exploit in 3 years not bad ) > hehehe > http://www.sendmail.org/%7Eca/email/doc8.12/SECURITY
Aw cm'on! This is just like saying windows IIS is not so bad TODAY because all the bugs of the nimda and code-red have been addressed TODAY. It's more than just patching up holes in a program what was designed poorly in the first place. Sendmail today is a program that started as simple MTA and a good bunch of people added feature upon feature, patch over patch to make it the dinosaur it is today, big and slow, and eats a lot (or resources). Ooops. i forget that the maintainers are putting it on a diet so it will loose some weight.. \8P The key is the design of the program. Postfix and Qmail have it correct in that multiple processes running as nonprivelaged users form parts of the whole. This sort of thing you cannot simply retrofit into an existing design, unless you want to rewrite the entire thing, and if the intention of 8.12 is not to rewrite the entire thing, then they are not solving any of the outstanding issues of sendmail so what's the use? > > difficult to configure - :) aren't all things > difficult if we don't give time to read and think of > things. True, but some configs are easier to learn than others, which i believe is where qmail lacks some beauty but nevertheless is acceptable as well. \8) This is what separates the 'mature' MTA's from the OLD and OBSOLETE MTAs > > sendmail is pain to maintain = i agree > > sendmail is not scalable = again the new versions of > sendmail has better support for ldap and other crap :) The 'other crap' simply extends the 'monolithic-icity' of sendmail. Again there's something to be said about adding 'more crap' to what is already 'crap' to begin with \8) > but i won't say don't use it .. but i will tell you to > use postfix or qmail > > I don't use sendmail but one thing it has its pro's, > pro's that makes it worth using.. THe only 'pro' for using sendmail (or at least knowing how to use it) is that it is the default mta in _major_ linux and unix distributions. But then if i get my hands on a solaris sendmail setup, it will quickly become a solaris+postfix setup in less than an hour anyway, so why should i even bother! he he he _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
