Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 07:23:29 -0500 (EST) From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org> To: roberto@keltia.freenix.fr (Ollivier Robert) Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: BoS: Exploit for sendmail smtpd bug (ver. 8.7-8.8.2). Message-ID: <199611181223.HAA12303@homeport.org> In-Reply-To: <Mutt.19961118065934.roberto@keltia.freenix.fr> from Ollivier Robert at "Nov 18, 96 06:59:34 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ollivier Robert wrote: | According to Adam Shostack: | > planning to replace sendmail with qmail real soon, and that helps me a | > lot. My suggestion was meant to imply the possibility of removing | > sendmail from the FreeBSD distribution, and only shipping qmail. | | I'd strongly object to this. In addition of what Warner said I must add | that qmail's UUCP support is noneexitent or rather anti-UUCP in the sense | that it generates multiple messages when a mail has multiple recipient. | | I manage several mailing-lists on my home machine and am the administrator | of another one with lots of UUCP users and qmail is unusable. While you raise a valid point, which is UUCP still exists, does it exist in the majority of systems out there? If not, should the default system config include a mailer which is archetecturally incapable of being secure? I can't object to your need, and the need of some others, to keep UUCP going, but I'm not convinced that it should be the default for most people. | I still can't bear the configuration system of qmail (lots of .qmail-mumble | everywhere, user defined mailing-lists that can't be disabled) and the | author's attitude in general[1] (but that's another problem). I'll agree with you wholeheartedly here. Lastly, it seems that author attitude are inseperable from the kind of hubris needed to write an MTA. :} Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611181223.HAA12303>