[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

RE: [K12OSN] sendmail and localhost.localdomain

On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 09:42, cwagnon redbugmail k12 ar us wrote:
> > This didn;t work.  I still get the localhost.localdomain thing and the
> > mail won't go.
> >
> > Anything else?
> Yeah, spare yourself a lotta headache. Switch to postfix :-)

    What would that solve, if Postfix can't find it's network addresses

    I've heard sendmail demeaned here and there, but there's really no

    1. It's the oldest MTA still in use, which brings with it baggage.
No argument there. But this thing's set up to do all sorts of things,
including things that weren't envisioned by the originators. It's big,
complicated, and is the inspiration for the term 'Sendmails'.  When
something is complicated, it's said to be "several sendmails" in
configuration and setup.

    2. I hear a lot about postfix being faster, or able to handle larger
amounts of data. Though I have no personal experience with this, several
'sage old men' that do mailing systems for a living tell me there's
really no difference.  Everything else they've told me, including the
non-trivial stuff, is accurate, so I tend to believe'em.

    3. When you get right down to it, the Postfix/Sendmail debate it's
the 'big elephant in the room that everyone's ignoring': the ability for
someone to install it, keep it happy, and make the customer happy, too.

    What I bring to the concept (perched precariously on the cliffs of a
flamewar) is that:

    A. Sendmail (for the masses under Linux) isn't that bad.  There are
a handful of concepts (found in the cryptic manual) that make installing
it from RPM can take seconds, literally.  And I think the only thing
that keeps it from being easier to install is that RPMs can't be
interactive...or there's not a simple 'wizard' written for the thing
that you can run before you open it for business.

    B. Postfix comes from a good 'ole American tradition: someone got
sick of the complications and was dedicated to improving it.  But
there's a cost.  The main one is the means of message storage that's
different than anything that had been written before.  I'm not saying
it's faster (MySQL or something would work best for that, as long as
import/export routines were made part of the MTA code) but it's a

    Both paths get you to the same place. They're both really good means
of wrangling email...but they took different paths.  But with just a
smige of experience with sendmail, [for the typical installation] you
could have both: the ability to wrangle large amounts of mail, and keep
software compatibility.

    I'm big on simple. The simpler, the better. You won't find me
messing with tarballs, unless it's vital.  I've already fought that for
two decades, and that's enough.  I responded to a message earlier about
someone setting up Sendmail..that's 99% of what you need to know is

    Just don't discount Sendmail due only to it's reputation; it's the
trailblazer; it formed what we now know email to be.  But in the end,
use what you're comfortable with supporting!

Brian Fahrländer          GNU/Linux Zealot, Conservative, and Technomad
Evansville, IN                    My Voyage: http://www.CounterMoon.com
ICQ  5119262

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]