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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960123193940.4975B-100000>