Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 19 Jan 1996 15:53:23 -0700
From:      Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net>
To:        Bill/Carolyn Pechter <pechter@shell.monmouth.com>
Cc:        wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett A. Wollman), freebsd-questions@freefall.freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Re:MMDF
Message-ID:  <199601192253.PAA16522@rocky.sri.MT.net>
In-Reply-To: <199601192113.QAA17077@shell.monmouth.com>
References:  <9601191805.AA10005@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> <199601192113.QAA17077@shell.monmouth.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > MMDF is hopelessly behind the times.  4.3 has only been out ten years,
> > and obsolete for five.  I would not waste my time if I were you.
> > 
> > -GAWollman
> > 
> 
> But it's a hell of a lot easier to work with than Sendmail.

Sendmail works pretty much out of the box on most machines nowadays, if
you can get it compile.

> It's also less of a security problem.

I disagree with this statement.  I'd say that sendmail is more secure,
although it's insecurities are more well-known simply because it's given
higher scrutiny because it's more common.

> BTW -- There's more MMDF out there than you think.
>        And it runs VERY WELL.

I've heard of sites who used MMDF but were forced to switch to sendmail
when the amount of email traffic grew beyond a certain point.  I doubt
MMDF could handle the email load we're seeing on freefall w/out
destroying freefall for any other task.


Nate



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199601192253.PAA16522>