smf-sav & CentOS5
marc at marcsnet.com
Fri Jan 15 14:09:25 GMT 2010
Look - one of my favourite quotes was out of Dirty Harry "Yeah, well -
opinions are like assholes - everybody's got one". You don't have to
agree with mine, but I don't have to agree with yours either. Working
through problems as opposed to paying somebody else is not wasting time.
£90? Ah - for a business this isn't a big deal I suppose. If it were
US$50 it'd be a no-brainer. I agree with devs needing to get paid. I
sometimes wonder if competition to drive pricing down is good or not
too. But I'm a sysadmin, not an economist. All I can say is that it is
too rich for me and in my case instead of getting half of something, the
devs will get all of nothing. If I'm one man that doesn't mater, does it?
I think I'll have to take the plunge and switch to Postfix. I haven't
gotten enthusiastic about it yet. Might be time to teach an old dog new
Anyway - my actual question - * has anyone gotten smf-sav or another
alternative solution running on a CentOS5 system? If so, I'd love to
hear from you. You never know, I might even pay you for it :)
Julian Field wrote:
> On 15/01/2010 11:59, Alex Broens wrote:
>> On 1/15/2010 12:47 PM, Marc Lucke wrote:
>>> Hi list,
>>> re: recipient address verification where MailScanner is sitting in
>>> FRONT of another mailserver (such as exchange)
>>> milter-ahead is like 90 quid - probably because they know they can
>>> get away with it. I'd rather not use anything than pay them that.
>> you are VERY mistaken - but its your choice.
>> A dev has to have to make a living - its not a community project nor
>> open source - Snertsoft produces hi quality milters and the
>> support/dev track is very good.
>>> smf-sav is brilliant - if it works. It won't on 2 of my CentOS5 boxes.
>> so you got what you paid for :-)
>> I'd bet you've spent £90 on more stupid things in your life :-)
> Such as all the time you've wasted trying and failing to make smf-sav
> work for you.
More information about the MailScanner