On 16 Jan 2007 at 12:10, John Rudd wrote: > And I would like to second that statement. I've used both quite a bit > in both home environments and in mission critical production > environments. I don't think MailScanner is an inferior package. With > one exception (the order in which it does its checks) it is VERY good at > attacking the anti-virus/anti-spam problem with the strategy it uses. > It's just not the strategy I prefer. > > MIMEDefang is _also_ VERY good at attacking that problem with its own > strategy. It's just not the same strategy that MailScanner uses. And, > clearly, I prefer MIMEDefang's strategy.
The ordering of the checks plus the ability to add more ways to reject also allows MIMEDefang to do less for each e-mail. The vast majority of connections to my box don't ever result in a virus or spam scan, because they are rejected long before that. I don't even use any DNSBL or other outright blocking...every connection is evaluated on its own merits (or lack thereof :). > The one thing I would say is a weakness with MIMEDefang is that, as > Scott suggests, there's a little bit of a learning curve if you want to > strike out on your own. When I started with MIMEDefang I hadn't even *seen* a Perl program before, and it took me very little time to get a system up and running...several weeks at the most. It did take me quite a while to get all my policy coded, but a lot of that time was deciding on what the policy should be. -- Jeff Rife | "Isn't that just great? I can't find a real | relationship...I'm incapable of meaningless | sex...what does that leave me? Oh, my | God...I'm gonna have to learn computers." | -- Jon Cryer, "Partners" _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang