Why is sendmail bad?

[Richard June]

On Thursday 24 February 2005 14:53, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 11:45:15AM -0800, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> > There seems to be a lot of dissatisfaction with sendmail in the call to
> > replace it with Exim or Postfix, but I didn't see any specifics about why
> > people object to it. Anyone care to give details?
>
> Most of the discusion has been about what should be the default.  For
> "newbies" sendmail can be a pain to configure.  It's documentation leaves
> something to be desired, and the default sendmail.cf file isn't all that
> helpful.
>
> That's not to say that sendmail isn't useful or does't work properly.  It
> does. But if a package is going to be the default for a distribution, it
> should also be fairly simple for new users to configure and adapt to.

I take issue to that. sendmail has always been *TONS* easier for me to 
configure then postfix/exim. the sendmail.mc file is simple to understand and 
edit. 

> > I'm using sendmail together with MIMEDefang to run SpamAssassin and
> > ClamAV against messages during the SMTP transaction so that I can reject
> > obvious spam and viruses before they're committed to a queue. MIMEDefang
> > uses a user-edited Perl script to establish the exact rules for
> > acceptance, making the system very flexible. How hard is that to set up
> > in Postfix or Exim?
>
> I haven't looked at postfix yet (will tonight maybe), but for exim all one
> has to do is uncomment one line in the default config file once
> spamassassin and a virus checker are installed.  Very easy.


-- 
Public Key available Here:
http://www.bravegnuworld.com/~rjune/pubkey.asc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20050224/5a77db6a/attachment.sig>