Marco d'Itri <m...@linux.it> writes: > On May 30, Chris Knadle <chris.kna...@coredump.us> wrote: > >> There's a reason it feels like this. Postfix was designed with security in >> mind, but wasn't focused on being a general purpose MTA. > Says who? Because I was around at the time, and I remember pretty well > that the goal was to write a sendmail replacement. > And apparently it worked.
Well, I'd say that at least part of the motivation was actually to write a qmail replacement, that didn't have someone with DJB's atitute to licensing as upstream -- it was for a long time called vmailer (v==vapour) as coined by DJB, and adopted by Wietse because it amused him. Given that it was qmail inspired, which was writen with the similar approach of having a crowd of distinct daemons perfornming one task each, with a UID for each, I'd say that the intent was to match qmail's security focus. If one were simply trying to replace Sendmail, the result might well have looked a lot more like Exim, with a monolithic executable, that forks into the various roles required. > I think that ease of configurability is a major plus for Postfix when > compared to Exim, since a common configurations is just a few lines > long. I happen to agree with you, but it's clearly a matter of what one is used to, and of taste. It's also a question of what you want to do. Setting up SMTP-time rejection based on something like Spamassasin is far easier with Exim, for instance. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] http://www.hands.com/ |-| HANDS.COM Ltd. http://www.uk.debian.org/ |(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND
pgpPHvdXnaqUW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
