Why is sendmail bad?

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le jeudi 24 février 2005 à 16:35 -0500, Chuck R. Anderson a écrit :
>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?
>
>In my environment, on 99% of all systems, I've never needed anything
>but a simple queue-to-smarthost mail sending daemon, with no receive
>functionality at all.  Therefore, I don't care which mail daemon is
>included, as long as it can do that and supports some type of
>/etc/aliases file.  I'd actually prefer to see a simple ssmtp-like
>program, but ssmtp doesn't meet those needs (it doesn't queue, doesn't
>expand local aliases).
>
>On the 1 or 2 systems that do need a full mail server, our mail admins
>roll their own builds/installs of sendmail anyway.

Funny I just wrote the same thing (and I do think they are wrong btw,
but then they did chose sendmail in the first place)

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20050224/f1296776/attachment.sig>