From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Tue Jul 2 11:06:40 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B93815CF7D1 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 11:06:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kremels@kreme.com) Received: from mail.covisp.net (mail.covisp.net [65.121.55.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 885CD80BDC for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 11:06:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kremels@kreme.com) From: "@lbutlr" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: sendmail Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 05:06:29 -0600 References: <20190630092535.7913d305.freebsd@edvax.de> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <957EE871-6906-4424-8895-826B517AF581@kreme.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 885CD80BDC X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of kremels@kreme.com designates 65.121.55.42 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=kremels@kreme.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.82 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.989,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; MISSING_MIME_VERSION(2.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[kreme.com]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.96)[-0.961,0]; IP_SCORE(-0.27)[ip: (-0.95), ipnet: 65.112.0.0/12(-0.33), asn: 209(-0.03), country: US(-0.06)]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[mail.covisp.net]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.18)[-0.184,0]; RCVD_COUNT_ZERO(0.00)[0]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:209, ipnet:65.112.0.0/12, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[42.55.121.65.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.1] X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 11:06:40 -0000 On 1 Jul 2019, at 06:02, Roderick wrote: > On Mon, 1 Jul 2019, Peter Boosten via freebsd-questions wrote: >=20 >> _and_ that sendmail is based on a single executable, while other MTAs >> spread the tasks over several. >=20 > Is that really so bad? It=E2=80=99s not good. Certainly not good if you have a lot of volume. > Why people do not hammer exim, the standard MTA in debian, for the = same reason? Does it have advantages that neutralizes it? I don=E2=80=99t know, but exim is newer code and well threaded, as I = recall, so it probably has less issues? I looked at exim, but dididn=E2=80= =99t use it. I looked at nginx, and stuck with apache but I am = constantly re-evaluating that decision. I went with postfix a long time ago and haven=E2=80=99t regretted it. = The community it very good and the configuration is a lot less opaque = than sendmail. > I tried a little exim, a little postfix and used at the end sendmail. I ran screaming from sendmail. If it wasn=E2=80=99t for postfix I would = have abandoned running a mail server, no way was I going to dive back = into sendmail. YMMV. --=20 And I was grounded while you filled the skies I was dumbfounded by truth; you cut through lies