Preferred MTA?

[Charles Lacroix]

I like postfix because it's just plain simple to configure and you aren't 
limited as you can call external programs to to whatever postfix doesn't do 
outa the box.



On Thursday 12 October 2006 15:49, Daniel Maher wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info [mailto:mailscanner-
> > bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Denis Beauchemin
> > Sent: October 12, 2006 3:16 PM
> > To: MailScanner
> > Subject: OT: Preferred MTA?
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I have been asked to evaluate what would be needed to turn our internal
> > mail hubs into secured ones.  Since I always had trouble with sendmail's
> > documentation, I was thinking about switching to another MTA.
> >
> > We currently use many sendmail features such as greet_pause,
> > conncontrol, ratecontrol and milter-greylist.  We have multiple domains
> > and use LDAP for final delivery address resolution. And of course, MS
> > must blend just fine with the MTA.
> >
> > What other MTA would give me those features with less headaches whenever
> > I need to change things?  Exim? Postfix? others?
> >
> > I couldn't find a greylisting for Exim that shares its state table
> > between multiple MX... but I think PF could use my existing
> > milter-greylist as is...
> >
> > As for ease of configuration and quality of documentation, which do you
> > recommend?
> >
> > Do you recommend using a HW load balancer (and SSL accelerator) in front
> > of my servers?  How about Cisco's?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Denis
>
> For my money, qmail is the way to go.  That said, MailScanner doesn't
> officially support qmail, so even though it's arguably the best MTA out
> there right now, you'll likely have to pass it by if you want to continue
> leveraging MailScanner as a platform.
>
> One might be able to infer from my previous statement that I'm somewhat
> anti-sendmail.  I don't deny it. :)  What I will say, however, is that one
> of the advantages that sendmail /does/ have over qmail is that there is an
> absolute tonne of 3rd party add-ons, support modules, and so forth out
> there for it.
>
> This, in fact, is why lean towards Postfix for MailScanner-enabled
> environments.  Postfix balances the extensibility of sendmail with the ease
> of use of qmail, and even manages to be popular enough to have a good
> support base (though some might tell you that the lead developer can be a
> bit of a cranky-pants at times ;) ).
>
> Anyhoo, that's just my 2 cents...
>
> > --
> >    _
> >   °v°   Denis Beauchemin, analyste
> >  /(_)\  Université de Sherbrooke, S.T.I.
> >   ^ ^   T: 819.821.8000x62252 F: 819.821.8045
>
> p.s. c't'un jolie 'tit pingouin dans ton .sig, la. ;)
>
>
> --
>   _
>  °v°  Daniel Maher
> /(_)\ Administrateur Système Unix
>  ^ ^  Unix System Administrator
>
> Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

-- 
Charles Lacroix, Administrateur UNIX.
Service des télécommunications et des technologies
Cégep de Sainte-Foy
(418) 659-6600 # 4266