MTA + AV: opinions?
costa at TECGRAF.PUC-RIO.BR
Wed Jun 9 12:21:03 IST 2004
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 23:35:46 +0200
Jan-Peter Koopmann <Jan-Peter.Koopmann at SECEIDOS.DE> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 08, 2004 7:31 PM Andre Costa wrote:
> > Both? Any noticeable impact on performance?
> That heavily depends on your machine and what mailload you are
> expecting. At the moment I am running ClamAV, F-Secure (with all three
> engines), mcafee and antivir at a customer site without any problem.
> As soon as BitDefender releases its FreeBSD version I will add it as
> well. Needless to say I am running SpamAssassin with all sorts of
> additional rules.
Thks for the info. Yeah, I was sure there was going to be a
performance penalty, I was just trying to estimate the figures.
Our msg traffic will be _very_ light compared to what you guys have been
posting here -- we're talking about our laboratory only, which means a
couple of hundreds of people. So, I guess performance shouldn't be an
> > It's definitely another heavyweight contender, we initially
> > considered both (exim still isn't out of the game). I
> > remember once trying to configure exim to use procmail, and
> > it was much more complicated than I expected, so it left me
> > with the impression it was maybe too complex to my needs back
> > then. It was sometime ago, so things might have changed in the
> > meantime...
> Exim is actually quite simple for 90% of the tasks. Try reading and
> understanding a complex exim config and then have a look at an
> equivalent sendmail.cf... Unless you are expecting houndred thousands
> of mails a day I would definately go for exim. The next best choice
> would be Postfix for me although there seem to be MailScanner issues
Yes, when it comes to complexity, sendmail is The King of Kings ;)
(I had to deal with it a couple of years ago) Thks for your input on
exim, we might give it a try on our test server to compare it with
So far my _personal_ experience with postfix has been ok (nice docs,
simple configuration), although I cannot make any statement about its
performance under high loads. Also, we did have some (minor) issues
while trying to configure it to play with MailScanner. We still have a
showstopper issue, but we still haven't pinpointed the exact culprit
(check the post from Fabio Sobral on this ML a couple of days ago).
Andre Oliveira da Costa
(costa at tecgraf.puc-rio.br)
-------------------------- MailScanner list ----------------------
To leave, send leave mailscanner to jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk
Before posting, please see the Most Asked Questions at
http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/ and the archives at
More information about the MailScanner