On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 01:15:24PM +0100, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-06-25 at 12:28, xq@??? wrote:
> > But i have also read some sites about comparison of MTA's, please read
> > self:
> > http://homepages.tesco.net/%7EJ.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/
>
> Most of whats written there has obviously not been checked or refers to
> old exim versions. For example:-
> * Web page comments are rubbish
> * directors is exim3 which has been obsolete for ages
> * scaling comments are reporting rumour with no backup
>
Oh dear, yes. I've seen that before. Essentially, the criteria for
those reviews is "Is this Qmail?", with marks deducted for not being
Qmail. The most amusing one is the Postfix review, where he's obviously
outraged that somebody has designed a secure mta (that is to say, an mta
designed with security as its priority) and spoiled things for him.
--
Bruce
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
