Test Scenario
Box1 Clone P2-350 128 MB ram NT4 w/mirrored 10.3 GB 7200 RPM HD's
IMAIL 5.03
Box2 Clone P2-350 128MB ram Linux (RedHat 5.2) single 10.3 GB 7200 RPM HD's
Sendmail 8.8 Freeware
Box3 Dell P2-350 128MB ECC ram NT4 6.4GB HD
Sendmail Pro for NT eval.
Box4 Dell P2-350 128MB ECC ram NT4 6.4GB HD
Software.com's Post.Office
Box4 Dell Power Edge Server P2-350 128MB ram NT4 9GB UltraWideSCSI HD
Lotus Notes SMTPMTA + POP + IMAP
I still have all of those machines here and while they are not exact
matches, they are certainly not miles apart either. If you read my results
you will see that I did mention the exception for SMTP response times where
"sendmail freeware" was highest under any load, Post.Offices were a close
second, but "sendmail pro for NT" was the absolute worst in SMTP response
times. I appreciate your viewpoint and your right to have it, but must
correct you about your opinion that I am berating something I do not
understand, I know what I am talking about. I had to talk my employer into
paying for IMAIL when I already had sendmail working for free on our Linux
server...................
There had to be something I could show him right?
Here were the points I gave him.
All around performance was high.
Cost and licensing model was affordable.
Administration was easy enough that I could take a vacation or be promoted
without being the only guy in the building who could run it.
Web interface was flexible.
Support was readily available.
I will keep my eyes on Sendmail Pro for Linux or maybe Solaris, but for now
the choice was clear. We bought IMAIL and are happy with it. I
congratulate you on your smooth transition, hope you can still take a
vacation this year!
-V
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 1999 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] migrated to sendmail
> Vaughn,
>
> While I really really like Imail for a lot of things, I cannot
> believe that it outbenchmarked sendmail running on unix.
>
> For what I use it for (the virtual pop) it is great - but my
> heavy mail loads go on sendmail.
>
> As far as *cracking* open mail programs, they *all* have flaws
> and holes - as evidenced by the schmuck who sent out a 100K+
> messages through me to AOL last year...on the Imail server.
>
> The only thing that stopped it was the Imail choked when the que
> got too large.
>
> And yes, my sendmail has also been hit - but while it is more difficult
> to configure, once it is secure, it usually stays that way.
>
> I agree..Ipswitch is a good company with good support and a
> good community, but let's try not to disparage that which you may
> not be completely aware of.
>
> EEjack
> WebCircle
>
>
> At 09:27 PM 8/29/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >Same Here.
> > I would rather beat on a responsive company (Ipswitch) for
enhancements
> >and API's than freeware on sendmail. I evaluated sendmail, Post.Office
and
> >NT Mail. It was IMAIL that won hands down at near every performance
> >benchmark we could throw at it. Post.Office had a faster SMTP response
> >time, but who wants to deal with per seat licensing? IMAIL configuration
> >was easier. There is an established (and open) support base that even
> >allowed your message on. The package is robust and scalable and there is
a
> >good company accountable for it. Now with Sendsnail Pro out on the
market
> >who is making sure that sendmail free is kept up to date and bug free?
> >Maybe the same crackers who will SPAM with it later? I am not
anti-freeware
> >and I do like Open Source, but that is a model that will deflate in time
to
> >producing profitless (read that unmotivated) revisions that lack features
> >that make my life easier.
> >Thanks for the offer!
> >-V
> Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
> to be removed from this list.
>
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
