On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 02:02:35PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Brett Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.07.1226 +0100]: > > exim4 and postfix, depending on the machine, and who origionally set it > > up. New machines are getting exim4 because it is far more flexible and > > powerful that postfix (in my experience). > > Well, my last tests have shown postfix to be more performant by > about a factor of 1.6. In addition, there is the single setuid > binary thing about exim. > > You are right that exim has a lot more features than postfix. > However, are they needed? To me, exim tries to be more than an MTA, > which is why I surely prefer postfix.
I use a fair chunk of them, so yes, I'd say they are. ACLs and the sheer power of the router config wins me over everytime. I work for a small ISP so the more flexible the solution, the better for us. As new things come up, and new unthought of problems arrise, I find that not having to go outside the server setup for large groups of users is rather useful. Coupled with rather powerful database access, exim4 just makes my life a lot easier. There have been some very simple things that I've needed to find solutions to with postfix in the past which I ended up having to do with procmail that I can now deal with in ~ 3 lines in the exim config. Then, I've always prefered exim, I like having control at my finger tips, and things to do what I expect :) Just out of interest, were your tests exim3 or exim4 vs postfix. FWICT there's been a lot of work gone in to exim4, and it does seem to be faster than exim3, I haven't done a straight speed comparison between postfix and exim4, though. Thanks, -- Brett Parker web: http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
