David Champion wrote: > * On 2002.07.11, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > * "Will Yardley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> postfix is also a bit less complicated than sendmail to configure (and >> harder to misconfigure). > Sendmail configuration is usually quite easy (that is, unless you're > doing complicated things with it). It's finding out how to configure > it that's hard. The introductory material is not so good. > > Given a quick start guide, though, sendmail is no worse than postfix > (which I found harder to configure, frankly). i suppose it's a matter of opinion, and what you're used to (and what your personal preferences are). I have used (and continue to use) sendmail, although I generally prefer to use postfix when possible. I make no claims to being an expert with m4, but I find flat configuration files simpler to deal with, and there are a lot of mistakes (order of stuff in the mc file, editing the cf file directly) that people tend to make frequently if they don't have experience with sendmail. Many vendors have their own tools which make it easier (or harder) to deal with. The postconf tool is also very useful since it lets you query both default and current settings, and even edit settings if necessary. I have no hard stats, but I've found postfix's performance to be better than sendmail's, and its security record is excellent. Charles Cazabon wrote: > qmail configuration is even easier. Installing the software is trivial if you > follow "Life with qmail" (http://lifewithqmail.org), and then configuration is > literally a single step for simple installations: To each his / her own, I suppose. I find qmail almost as unpleasant as its author. -- Will Yardley input: william < @ hq . newdream . net . >
