* Karsten M. Self (kmself@ix.netcom.com) wrote: > on Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 09:16:46PM -0800, Peter Jay Salzman ([EMAIL > PROTECTED]) wrote: > > satan$ dpkg -p exim > > (snip) > > Description: Exim Mailer > > This MTA is rather easier to configure than smail or sendmail. > > It is a drop-in replacement for sendmail/mailq/rsmtp. > > Advanced features include the ability to reject connections from > > known spam sites, and an extremely efficient queue processing > > algorithm. > > > > > > i'm looking at: > > > > Advanced features include the ability to reject connections from > > known spam sites > > > > exim can use rbl to reject msgs from spam sites. but so can every > > other MTA. > I do not have a particularly demanding situation, just my own mail and internal system messages to contend with, so I can't speak for high-volume or complex circumstances. However, I use fetchmail-exim-mutt, without the usual procmail, because the exim filter capability pretty much handles everything. The filtering is not as sophisticated as procmail, but does the job. I have been able to find anti-spam scripts, which seem to work pretty well. Once I got it through my head that I needed to set up the config file properly, it was a piece of cake.
It is not out of beta yet, but version 4 has a lot more included in it, including more sophisticated scripting. If you have time to play before making a commitment, checking it out may be a good thing. The exim-users list is nearly as busy as this one, so there's lots of help. <snip> > I think you're looking for a comparative essay on MTAs. That's not my > specialty. However, a few thoughts off the top on Exim: > > - Sane configuration files, particularly compared to Sendmail. I > _can_ drop onto a box, read, and largely understand, an exim config > (I don't read the things routinely in my spare time, really). Same > cannot be said for Sendmail. Other "modern" MTAs (postfix, qmail) > likely have similar characteristics. Not familiar with them. > > - Good performance characteristics. Through friends I hear of exim > configs which handle high mail loads, certainly higher than you'll > often hear (anectdotally) exim being supposedly capable of. > > - Good security track record. Sendmail's the black sheep here. Exim > runs as an unprivileged user, and minimizes use of SUID ops. > > - Good set of command-line ops. The mail admin can list, query, > freeze and thaw, and delete, jobs. Commands are largely Sendmail > compatible. > > - Good conformance to standards, both mail and filesystem (qmail loses > on the latter). > > Exim's not the only option out there, but it's a good one. > I definitely echo all the above. It's actually pretty easy to work with, and gives you a lot of control. Cheers Cam -- Cam Ellison Ph.D. R.Psych. From Roberts Creek on B.C.'s incomparable Sunshine Coast [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
