Re: Postfix as default MTA?
In article <[🔎] 19990704174122.C7969@wonderland.linux.it>, md@linux.it (Marco
d'Itri) wrote:
>Read the docs. It is /designed/ to be secure and fast.
>Exim is not.
So? Reality always shows those, who just rely on the design and not the
experience of field testing, to be the fools in the field of security.
Just because something has the button "designed for security" attached to
it doesn't say it doesn't have security flaws problems to it, too. I don't
question Wietses reputation - but postfix is just to new a kid on the
block. Give it some time to show it is up to the expectations is all I
say. It's far to early in postfix's live to switch the default MTA because
postfix beeing more secure.
There might be other things that propose a switch of the default MTA, but
up to now I didn't see that much of them - the only one beeing one who
stated that the Postfix documentation is better than the Exim one. If that
really is the case, that might be an argument pro switching. Everything
else I read was just argumenting that Postfix does this and that better
than sendmail or qmail. Fine - but this is uninteresting in regards to
switching the default MTA, as both are _not_ the default. Exim is the
default, so show facts where Postfix is better suited than Exim for beeing
default MTA.
bye, Georg
--
http://www.westfalen.de/hugo/
Reply to: