A comparison of Mail Transfer Agents - Part Two
Posted Aug 31, 2006 18:59 UTC (Thu) by acorliss
Parent article: A comparison of Mail Transfer Agents - Part Two
The sheer incompetence of these articles are staggering. In fact, your final "matrix" seems to be more emotionally influenced than factually based. How about a row comparing scalability (and provide some actual benchmarks and metrics)? How including scalability in context of mail routing & filtering configuration complexitity?
Giving sendmail a zero for "*sendmail* milter" support is assinine. Giving it a zero for "worried about security" is ludicrous in context of the last several years -- it only makes sense if you are comparing complete histories, and even that's not entirely fair given how much longer a history sendmail than all the others. They learnt all the hard lessons for everyone else.
You gave sendmail a zero on "wanting minimum hassle" even though your own text states that "sendmai works with little or no modification to the default settings"! For that matter, shouldn't that also affect the score for inexperience users?!
Size constraints? Have you looked at the compiled footprint of the other daemons?
Yes, I am a sendmail user. I know it has warts, but I also know I've evaluated several other alternatives and found none of them to have the flexibility and scalability for complex ISP & Enterprise environments.
Your scoring system is inconsistent with even the facts you presented and is utter rubbish.
to post comments)