CNN on Sendmail for NT

J. Pierpont writes "CNN has an article on, of all things, sendmail. The unusual thing is that sendmail for NT is not open source. The article goes on to highlight some of the security advantages that it has over Exchange Server. I still think it's odd that CNN would have an article about sendmail."

Comments

secure??

[Anonymous Coward]

If sendmail adds security, exactly how bad is Exchange Server??

Re:secure??

[IntlHarvester]

(Since everyone is making comparisons, and this one is the highest rated.)

Just to point something out, sendmail and Exchange aren't really comparable products. Sendmail is pretty much a pure SMTP MTA, where Exchange tries to be a complete groupware system, with X400-based mail.

I guess you could make a comparision between sendmail and the rather non-configurable Exchange Internet Mail Connector or with the simple IIS SMTP relay, but that's not really fair either. Most larger shops will use something like sendmail on the border or the backbone with Exchange or whatever else for internal mail only. Sendmail for NT makes sense even in Exchange enviorns because Microsoft really doesn't make a good straight-SMTP solution.

Re:How can it not be Open Source?

[_dim]

This is because sendmail's license is based upon the BSD license. It specifically allows software to become closed.

I don't want to start a GPL vs BSD flame war here, but this is a good example of the possibilities of the BSD license.
--

Not that odd

[rde]

For a start, it's not a Sendmail story; it's an NT story. More specifically, it's a Unix Flagship App being Made Available for NT story. For me, the relevant paragraph cites Sendmail as making NT "more scaleable and more secure". This is a big thing (as we all know), and a factor that may weigh heavily in the minds of NT admins considering migration.
Which means there'll probably be a slew of 'traitor', 'sell-out', etc aimed at Sendmail, all of which cheerfully ignore the reality of business; companies are around to make money and the best way of doing that is to have your software work on as many machines as possible.
This could well be a blow to Linux's increasing popularity as it addresses some fundamental concerns about NT. But that's no reason to blame Sendmail.

Used Sendmail on NT - Loved Sendmail on NT

[millia]

For me, the great benefit of Sendmail on NT (and while is this strictly speaking from experience with the MetaInfo owned version, after trying out 3.0 at Networld it appears to be just as valid) was twofold:
1) it just works. period. At a previous job, we had to use NT because of a state project, and I didn't want to have exchange doing direct mail transfers. So, we got SendMail/NT, and it works like a champ. As a gateway, it's unbeatable.
The new version is even nicer, and it fixes a lot of the inabilities of 2.5 to customize setups.
Frankly, I don't understand the person who talked about its instability- ours was on a pII/350 (256 megs ram, 8 gigs hd) that was running IIS and Proxy 2, and that was a box that never hiccuped*. At last check, there were over 4 gigs of mail sent and 11 gigs of mail received on that box, with but 2 messages hiccuping. It doesn't interfere with other services, and it starts and stops quickly.
Now, I don't really know about its robustness for POP purposes. We didn't use it that way. The only account was mine for mail list reading. I have heard that the new version makes performance quite effective, as the previous one did apparently suffer with more than 500 pop accounts.
2) It finances sendmail's continued existence. When they bought out MetaInfo's product, Sendmail Inc. raised prices and removed the unlimited POP option, causing some grumbling. Before, it cost $250 for schools, with unlimited users. Still, for nonprofits, it's still a bargain (if you have to use NT), and the effective cost per user is less than exchange's.

*The big problem with NT is the myriad ways that it can screw up. But at root I think is people who think that making a production NT server requires less planning than a *nix box.
I wouldn't dream of taking a by-the-server-wizard installation of Redhat directly to use, and similarly, it's foolish to expect the same of NT in spite of Microsoft's portrayal. Plus, the other things that get added (like HP's print tools) can complicate matters unnecessarily.
Nor would I put it in use with testing it, and then rebuilding it from scratch, if it was my first such setup.

Server Administration

[HalJohnson]

I've deployed quite a few NT servers, but these days, I'm finding unix boxen more and more appealing. Unlike most people who gripe about the stability of NT, this isn't my issue. I have NT servers that have been running for well over a year without a hitch. My newfound preference for unix is due to flexibility. Configuring NT services is nowhere near as flexible as configuring comparable unix services, not without getting into some real code anyhow.

It's interesting how they point out the easy to use UI for configuring sendmail on NT. Although the primary reason I like unix is due to the power available by modifying configuration files to taste, I still think there should be two levels of configuration for any particular service.

Even if the second level is just a "browser" to give you an overview of the current setup, it would be a welcome addition. Sometimes its aggrevating to scroll through huge config files just to find one particular setting. I wouldn't give up the slightest bit of flexibility for it, but it would be nice.

I personally consider the port of sendmail a good thing. Exchange has some nice features, but it's a serious dog. And I've had the unfortunate experience of developing exchange/outlook commercial plug-ins on both the client and server side. It wasn't as bad as notes/vim, but it was close.