Re: [tlug] Mail Server

[Matt Doughty <wyndigo@example.com>]

On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 05:02:28PM +0900, James Cluff wrote:
> 
> And Thus Spake "A. Sajjad Zaidi" <sajjad@example.com> (on Mon, 29 Sep 2003
> 14:55:54 +0900):
> 
> >> I wouldn't include sendmail in this list. It is a dinosaur that is best
> >> left alone unless you are a true fan of its configuration files. Try
> >> Postfix instead.
> 
> >I guess that makes me a dinosaur then because sendmail is about the only
> MTA
> >I know my way around :)
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with being a dinasour I mean Apache is kind of a dinasour too
> isn't it?    That is actually a selling point I think.
> 

This isn't really a selling point in most cases, and generally speaking 
sendmail only make sense in a few situations these days:

1. It supports an ancient/esoteric feature that you need.
2. You are running some third party software that only works with
   sendmail.
3. You really really know sendmail inside and out.

I'm really not sure at this point how many old standards are only supported
by sendmail, but I am pretty sure postfix supports most of them at this point,
and I would imagine it would have to be something really odd. 

As far as point two goes it is true that most third party software targets
sendmail though you can often get the software to work with the alternate
MTAs with a bit of effort.  This of course requires a bit deeper knowledge
to do in most cases. Raising the interesting point that if you can't get the
software to work with a different MTA do you really have the expertise to
be running sendmail in the first place.

As for the ones who really know sendmail in and out.  More power to them, but
I think even some of those old krufty bastards are switching over.  I can think
of several I know who have converted to postfix from those ranks.

Basically, if you aren't sure which MTA you want use then sendmail is 
definitely not the right choice.

--Matt