>that nothing can equal, much less beat, sendmail. This is especially
>true when you start talking about filtering for spam or viruses via
>the milter interface.
Well, considering that milter is sendmail's, yes, wanting to use the
milter method gives sendmail an advantage. There are plenty of other
options if you choose the filter method suited to each mail server.
What are people using for network based anti-virus? A friend of mine
started a company www.raeinterent.com/rav and claims to have an industrial
broken link btw. probably meant raeinternet.com? They no longer claim
anything except to have been acquired by M$.
anti-virus app that plugs into Communigate Pro. Any experience with network
based anti-virus & mail systems?
I sure wouldn't call an antivirus scanner that runs on the most common
target platform an ideal solution.
In terms of high-performance anti-virus, go to Trend Micro. While they
have their problems, the vscan interface is the quickest and most scalable
scanner I've found. 500k users is one thing. Being able to handle the
unpredictable traffic (mail volume over time) for those users is another.
Being able to open each message, recursively open up containering file
formats (zip, tar, rar, et al) and scan the actual file for viruses is
still another. I don't particularly care for their sendmail replacement
solution, but vscan is a solid component solution. Admittedly, my own
experience is limited to about 1 million messags/hr, so depending on your
actual mail traffic, it may not hold up as well.
Ignore the data you have on sending mail, or at least put it in its place.
It's much easier to keep up your own outbound traffic rate than it is to
deal with the same quantity of inbound traffic (sendmail can easily flood
an identical sendmail configuration, or at least render it unable to talk
to anyone else due to being busy -- yes, you can rate limit senders, but
that is not scaling your own ability to accept traffic now, is it?).
While none of the unix options are stellar at it, windows options tend to
be even more inefficient at I/O operations, rather critical when you're
dealing with a lot of small files, such as in a mail server. Unix
options generally have an easier time dividing traffic across spindles
as well, which is one way to buy yourself more throughput.
I've had very encouraging results with Postfix over the years, and it fails
the most gracefully and consistently of any common server I've tried. This
is quite valuable in designing a reliable and scalable solution, imho.
It's fairly easy to plug in modifications as needed, and extremely easy
to handle routine configuration changes. Parallelized management works
as well as nearly anything. Qmail can be bent to do many things, but
was intended to be small, so adding features gets increasingly painful
with each addition.
If you have made the religious decision that only Windows based servers
can do the job for you, your only hope would be Domino. Call IBM, then
setup a postfix relay box in front of it to fix the (outbound) headers. :-\
Every other windows-based mail server I've seen fails (often dramatically)
at 20k or so users, or smaller. Domino fails too, but at least tends to
parallelize well. It also has a path upwards in the event you choose
your underlying platform poorly.
Whatever it is, you're in for some, umm, interesting times. I still remember
my own experiences quite vividly.