Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 19:42:57 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Samplonius <tom@uniserve.com> To: Nathan Lawson <nlawson@statler.csc.calpoly.edu> Cc: Paul Traina <pst@Shockwave.COM>, security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ownership of files/tcp_wrappers port Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960123193940.4975B-100000@haven.uniserve.com> In-Reply-To: <199601232006.MAA11043@statler.csc.calpoly.edu>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Tue, 23 Jan 1996, Nathan Lawson wrote: > > Let me state, completely, my objections to adding the tcp wrapper code: > > > > (a) there are several similar competing bits of code out there > > that do similar things -- wrappers is not the only way to go > > I've only heard of xinetd, and Mike Neumann's binetd, but that's for SunOS > only. There are plenty of competing mailer packages besides sendmail, but > sendmail comes installed by default. Why? Because it's the industry standard > mailer. Look on any system that uses any kind of access control and it's > very likely that they are using tcp_wrappers. Why? Because it's smaller, > easy to configure, and well-written. ...and slower. > I think your arguments could be extended to say that "let's have sendmail be > a port since many sites are not Internet or even UUCP connected. It's easy > to install if a user should desire it. Besides, I have a firewall and use > a custom package anyway, so it would save space on my system, as well as all > the work to keep up-to-date (what with all the holes and security patches that > sendmail has gone through)" Sendmail is included because it is standard BSD tool, and has always been included with BSD distributions since Sendmail was written. Tomhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960123193940.4975B-100000>