On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Ian C. Sison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > And of these points not a single ONE of these address anything > > technical in nature, > > Technical comparisons of MUAs are difficult; meaningful ones, more so, > because much is inherently debatable. Even the comparisons of > throughput capacity I've seen have been such. (See remarks by J C > Lawrence near the end of > http://www.grin.net/~mirthles/pile/contra_majordomo_plus_MTA_stuff.html)
Nice dissection \8), which is more acceptable and believable than simply citing 'big' institutions and 'maturity' for chosing sendmail, and make it the basis (among others) for choosing it over other MTAs. I disagree however with your point that sendmail, and its improvements done in response to security or performance reasons, is enough to consider it as a viable MTA solution today. Its track record in security and performance reflects design flaws which existed from the time it was first deployed, and whatever improvements are simply 'band-aid' covering up what essentially is a broken design to begin with. What sendmail needs is a total redesign, and re-code..., which has actually been done, in the form of qmail and postfix. \8) _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fully Searchable Archives With Friendly Web Interface at http://marc.free.net.ph To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
