Why is sendmail bad?

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le samedi 26 février 2005 à 09:05 -0800, Kenneth Porter a écrit :
>--On Thursday, February 24, 2005 4:35 PM -0500 "Chuck R. Anderson" 
><cra at WPI.EDU> wrote:
>
>> 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).
>
>I can understand queuing, in case the real server is down. That can be the 
>simple-minded queuing implemented by most MUA's. But why aliases? Shouldn't 
>those also be handled by the real server?

You can always get by with your provider if you pay more. Often you have
to play tricks when you only have a basic residential access. In my case
that means real queues + aliases + address rewriting + sasl auth + use
of port 24 not 25. I'd be surprised if I where alone in this case.

To fight spamming and worms ISP put in place all sorts of creative
annoyances that mean you really need a smart MTA if you don't want to be
reduced to webmail.

Regards,

-- 
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/20050226/ba467c75/attachment.sig>