From owner-freebsd-security Thu Jan 9 21:26:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id VAA18727 for security-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 21:26:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id VAA18720 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 21:26:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org [127.0.0.1] by rover.village.org with esmtp (Exim 0.56 #1) id E0viZRh-0006S1-00; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 22:24:01 -0700 To: Dan Cross Subject: Re: sendmail running non-root SUCCESS! Cc: Lyndon Nerenberg , Jimbo Bahooli , freebsd-security@freebsd.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 09 Jan 1997 14:08:47 EST." <19970109190847.12307.qmail@spitfire.ecsel.psu.edu> References: <19970109190847.12307.qmail@spitfire.ecsel.psu.edu> Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 22:24:01 -0700 From: Warner Losh Message-Id: Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In message <19970109190847.12307.qmail@spitfire.ecsel.psu.edu> Dan Cross writes: : Perhaps I'm being naive here, but what's the pressure to stick with : sendmail? Why not move to a more reliable and efficient MTA, like : Qmail? Short answer: Because qmail has an insufficient track record to replace a known workhorse like sendmail with in the base system. There are issue with configuration and such with qmail, and the upgrade path for current users. However, there is work underway to allow alternative mailer agents to be used, to allow more testing and experience with qmail, exim or any of the other replacements. Heck, you really should look into exim. There's even a FreeBSD port of it that is quite good. Makes virtual domains a breeze (as does qmail). Qmail isn't the end all be all of mailers either, but we've had that flame war here, and it tends to be counter productive. Warner