[gentoo-dev] RE: [gentoo-user] Sendmail

[gentoo-dev] RE: [gentoo-user] Sendmail

[Austad, Jay]

sendmail == devil  
Use postfix.  :)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier BOURGEAT [mailto:obourgeat@sysdeo.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:19 AM
> To: gentoo-user@gentoo.org; gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> Subject: [gentoo-user] Sendmail
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Does someone know why there is no package for sendmail in the portage 
> tree ? ( I know others MTAs are easier to setup ;-) )
> 
> I tried to create a .ebuild file (sendmail-x.x.x.ebuild in 
> net-mail/sendmail directory) but emerge told me "Calculating 
> dependencies !!! Couldn't find match for net-mail/sendmail; 
> aborting.".
> 
> If I replace net-mail/sendmail/sendmail-x.x.x.ebuild by 
>  net-mail/sendmail2/sendmail2-x.x.x.ebuild everything is ok.
> 
> So what happens ?
> 
> Thanks,
> Olivier
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-user mailing list
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-user
> 

Re: [gentoo-dev] RE: [gentoo-user] Sendmail

[gentoo-user]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Austad, Jay wrote:

> sendmail == devil
> Use postfix.  :)
>

Care to explain? What's the disadvantage of sendmail except that its
harder to configure?

Paul

-- 
  ___
 /~~~\  | Paul de Vrieze
| O-O | | Student of information management and technology
|  _  | | Mail: Paul@devrieze.net
 \___/  | Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

RE: [gentoo-dev] RE: [gentoo-user] Sendmail

[Austad, Jay]

> On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Austad, Jay wrote:
> 
> > sendmail == devil
> > Use postfix.  :)
> >
> 
> Care to explain? What's the disadvantage of sendmail except that its
> harder to configure?

Sendmail has a long long history of security holes, it runs as root, it
spawns a single process which can be a bottleneck under high loads
(especially with a single cpu box), and it's a pain to configure and manage.
That whole m4 config thing really sucks.

Postfix has almost no history of security holes (except for a DoS attack
awhile back), it runs as a normal user and can be chrooted for more
security, it runs multiple processes for outgoing and incoming mail, and
administration can be done completely through the postconf command with no
editing of config files (which makes it great for clustering and making the
same changes across all boxes with a single command).  You can remove
messages from the running queue.  And it's extremely fast.

Qmail is fast.  But, after using it for over a year on about 12 different
boxes I've replaced it with postfix.  Qmail used to be faster than postfix,
but this is no longer the case.  It's a pain to administer, logging sucks
bigtime, any modifications must be done as a patch because of DJB's screwed
up licensing scheme.  Qmail touches the disk about 3 times more than
postfix, so if you have slow disks or a ton of mail, disk i/o will most
likely be your bottleneck here (actually, on most mailservers disk IO is the
bottleneck).  

I haven't used sendmail in about 2 years.  After switching from qmail to
postfix about 3 months ago, my life is much much easier.  

I don't want to start a flame war, but I'm sure this probably will.  :)

Jay

RE: [gentoo-dev] RE: [gentoo-user] Sendmail

[gentoo-user]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Austad, Jay wrote:

>
> Sendmail has a long long history of security holes, it runs as root, it
> spawns a single process which can be a bottleneck under high loads
> (especially with a single cpu box), and it's a pain to configure and manage.
> That whole m4 config thing really sucks.
>
> Postfix has almost no history of security holes (except for a DoS attack
> awhile back), it runs as a normal user and can be chrooted for more
> security, it runs multiple processes for outgoing and incoming mail, and
> administration can be done completely through the postconf command with no
> editing of config files (which makes it great for clustering and making the
> same changes across all boxes with a single command).  You can remove
> messages from the running queue.  And it's extremely fast.
>
> Qmail is fast.  But, after using it for over a year on about 12 different
> boxes I've replaced it with postfix.  Qmail used to be faster than postfix,
> but this is no longer the case.  It's a pain to administer, logging sucks
> bigtime, any modifications must be done as a patch because of DJB's screwed
> up licensing scheme.  Qmail touches the disk about 3 times more than
> postfix, so if you have slow disks or a ton of mail, disk i/o will most
> likely be your bottleneck here (actually, on most mailservers disk IO is the
> bottleneck).
>
> I haven't used sendmail in about 2 years.  After switching from qmail to
> postfix about 3 months ago, my life is much much easier.
>
> I don't want to start a flame war, but I'm sure this probably will.  :)
>

Ok, I believe this answers my question. I just wanted more reasons than
only sendmail==devil.

Thanks,
Paul

-- 
  ___
 /~~~\  | Paul de Vrieze
| O-O | | Student of information management and technology
|  _  | | Mail: Paul@devrieze.net
 \___/  | Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net