[Mimedefang] Re: compare mimedefang to mailscanner
Jeff Rife
mimedefang at nabs.net
Tue Jan 16 21:29:31 EST 2007
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"
More information about the MIMEDefang
mailing list