From owner-freebsd-security  Tue Dec 17 01:30:45 1996
Return-Path: <owner-security>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id BAA10992
          for security-outgoing; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 01:30:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from panacea.insight.co.za (panacea.insight.co.za [196.27.7.71])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id BAA10982
          for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 01:30:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from tony@localhost) by panacea.insight.co.za (8.8.4/8.7.3) id LAA25530; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 11:29:21 +0200 (SAT)
From: Tony Harverson <tony@panacea.insight.co.za>
Message-Id: <199612170929.LAA25530@panacea.insight.co.za>
Subject: Re: sendmail...
To: vitjok@fasts.com (Victor Rotanov)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 11:29:21 +0200 (SAT)
Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.961217110236.16720A-100000@server.fasts.com> from "Victor Rotanov" at Dec 17, 96 11:04:07 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, Snob Art Genre wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, Victor Rotanov wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Hello.
> > > 
> > > Why sendmail can't be replaced with something more secure by default?
> > > I'd suggest Zmailer which can be fount at 
> > > ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/unix/mail/zmailer
> > > It is also seems to be faster than sendmail on high loads.
> > 
> > Oh god, don't get the religious wars going again, *please*.
> why? anything is more secure than sendmail, and zmailer is used on 
> highly loaded mail servers.
Because the last  time we tried this, the only thing we established was that
all these mailing systems could keep up output at least fast enough to spam
the FreeBSD-security mailing list with messages about how cool they are.

T