** Ottavio <tat07x202@???> [2008-01-22 08:06]:
> On Jan 21, 2008 6:56 PM, Paul Tansom wrote:
> > I'm not convinced of
> > the value of using two different mail servers over putting together an
> > Exim based solution, and one that does a decent amount of rejecting at
> > the SMTP conversation stage.
>
> Because if one is compromised, the other is still ok.
** end quote [Ottavio]
How does that help? If one server is compromised the fact that the other
isn't will be of little practical help. The rebuild work won't be
significantly different labour wise, and your mail processing is
compromise either way. Arguably you are worse off having two different
servers to maintain, both with the risk of compromise, and with the
added complication of two different applications to understand. In
practice I doubt there's much real difference.
As an aside, the Nuclear Elephant site appears to be back up again, so I
am now exploring dspam, spamassassin, vexim, greylistd, postgrey,
clamassassin, etc., etc.
--
Paul Tansom | Aptanet Ltd. |
http://www.aptanet.com/ | 023 9238 0001
======================================================================
Registered in England | Company No: 4905028 | Registered Office:
Crawford House, Hambledon Road, Denmead, Waterlooville, Hants, PO7 6NU
