[Mimedefang] compare mimedefang to mailscanner

[Josh Kelley]

On 1/16/07, David F. Skoll <dfs at roaringpenguin.com> wrote:
> 1) Disk I/O:  MIMEDefang will use less disk I/O than Mailscanner because
> you're not queueing every mail message twice.  In fact, if you have a modern
> version of Sendmail with SuperSafe set to PostMilter and MIMEDefang rejects
> or tempfails a message, that queue file won't be sync'd to disk.

Sorry for going OT, but this is the first I'd heard of the PostMilter
option.  Is there any reason not to enable that with MIMEDefang?
(Even if the server crashes before the queue is sync'd, the sender
will retry, so no data loss should occur, correct?)

Josh Kelley