Subject: Re: Postfix
To: Greg A. Woods <>
From: Pete Naylor <>
List: current-users
Date: 08/14/2000 10:37:52
Greg A. Woods wrote...

> [ On Sunday, August 13, 2000 at 19:06:16 (-0700), Pete Naylor wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: Postfix
> >
> > > Break things down a bit - look at functionality instead of 'brand names'
> > 
> > Uh - if I were only looking at functionality, postfix would probably be my
> > last choice of MTA.  It's not mature, and lacks a lot of configurability
> > and advanced features.  It has some good points too of course - which is
> > why it should be a choice for those who really want it, and not a
> > replacement for the somewhat generic tool that's now in NetBSD.
> I think that's the point -- Postfix is smaller,

I didn't know that.  Is it true when you sum the size of all the binaries
included in a postfix install?  Is this really the primary motivation?

> simpler,

No, it's not.  Anything represented by a jumble of a dozen daemons is
likely to be daunting to a newbie - it's certainly not going to be easy
for them to grasp and troubleshoot.  Of course, most system administrators
can accomplish the basics with sendmail because they're familiar with it.

> and easier to
> configure. 

Most people don't need to do much sendmail configuration.  For a simple
node, it doesn't need much help - and a as distributed would
work pretty much out of the box.  Those who've had to mess with sendmail
configuration in the past (a lot of people) now know how to do it, and it
works.  Why force them to waste their time learning over again with
another MTA that they may not want/like?

> People who need really esoteric weird features and/or
> extreme configurability will usually know what they're doing in the
> first place and they should and so long as they do they can easily go
> get sendmail or zmailer (or even exim)!

Or even postfix - people are free to get it and install if they so desire.
Replacing sendmail with postfix in the base distribution is senseless.  
It provides no advantage at all, and it confuses a lot of people without
justification.  Exim would probably be a better choice, actually, but I
still wouldn't want to see it replace sendmail in the base distribution.

> > Right - many will disagree, so leave the basic sendmail tool as it is, and
> > allow those who prefer something else to install their chosen MTA easily.  
> But "basic sendmail" is an oxymoron!  ;-)

No, it's absolutely not.  sendmail as included in Unix OS distributions
for many a year has fulfilled the purpose required of it just fine, and
nobody has presented any justification for replacing it with postfix
beyond "but I like postfix and I think it's better than sendmail".  Geez,
in many regards, my dog is a better MTA than sendmail - but I don't think
he should replace sendmail in the NetBSD base distribution.

In many systems I prefer not to install my preferred MTA, because I can
use the included MTA for the basic functionality which is required.
sendmail works just fine for me for that purpose, and I have absolutely no
desire to learn about the dozen+ daemons in postfix or the postfix
configuration, or postfix queue management etc.  If there was a compelling
reason for replacing sendmail with postfix I wouldn't be complaining, but
there is just absolutely no justification at all.  Why fix something
that's not broken?  Seems like it's just a personal crusade by a few
postfix fans :(

Pete Naylor