SENTINIX Postfix+MailScanner+SpamAssassin

[Michel]

That should be 10000 (10k)  :)
but you get the point, all depends on the processing power anyway...  I meant 
if anyone has run Zmailer + MailScanner absolutely stable on an active e-mail 
server for an extended perior of time without stopping it (say, a few 
months)?

/Michel

On Tuesday 02 December 2003 18:22, David H. wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> Michel (by way of Michel ) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I do now consider changing MTA.... I'm orginally a "Sendmail-guy" but
> > would like to test Exim or Zmailer before falling back to Sendmail
>
> I am a sendmail guy as well (and happy with it :P) but currently
> evaluating Exim + MailScanner, which seems to work fine too.
>
>
> (if). Julian
>
> > recommended Exim, so perhaps that's the logical choice?!   *but*, I'm
> > reading about some local root exploits for, although earlier versions of,
> > Exim, which is why I'm hesitating. :)
>
> Is that Exim3 ?
>
> > Preferred MTA?  Exim or Zmailer or {insert favourite MTA} ?
>
> I'd want
> First Choice  Sendmail + MailScanner (due to milter support)
> Second Choice Exim + MailScanner
>
> > Anyone got good/bad experience of Zmailer + MailScanner ( + SpamAssassin)
> > ?? On a busy (1000+ e-mails per day) proxy/gateway or server??
>
> 1000+ I would not call anywhere near busy ;) One of the Server we have
> on sendmail+MailScanner does around 20K a day and is happy. But even
> that is a laughable amount of daily mail.
>
>
> - -d
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin)
>
> iD8DBQE/zMpdPMoaMn4kKR4RA9ctAJ9P0Ttz87Lc7FG9hG7/emb2/toBTwCfYfF1
> i+UAOeXBGUrsI9VipTC7pcw=
> =qOvr
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----