Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 01:09:30 -0800 (PST) From: Snob Art Genre <ben@narcissus.ml.org> To: Victor Rotanov <vitjok@fasts.com> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sendmail... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.961217010735.1306B-100000@narcissus.ml.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.961217110236.16720A-100000@server.fasts.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, Victor Rotanov wrote: > > > 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. I'm not saying zmailer isn't better -- I have no hard facts on the subject and therefore no opinion. I'm saying that this issue has been thrashed about on the lists ad nauseam, with little or no positive effect, and that there's no point in bringing it up again, because there likely aren't any new arguments on either side since a few weeks ago, when last the issue appeared. Ben The views expressed above are not those of the Worker's Compensation Board of Queensland, Australia.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.961217010735.1306B-100000>