From owner-freebsd-questions  Wed Apr 12 04:28:15 1995
Return-Path: questions-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id EAA10219
          for questions-outgoing; Wed, 12 Apr 1995 04:28:15 -0700
Received: from ns1.win.net (ns1.win.net [204.215.209.3])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id EAA10213
          for <questions@freebsd.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 1995 04:28:13 -0700
Received: (from bugs@localhost) by ns1.win.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) id HAA18362 for questions@freebsd.org; Wed, 12 Apr 1995 07:30:03 -0400
From: Mark Hittinger <bugs@ns1.win.net>
Message-Id: <199504121130.HAA18362@ns1.win.net>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.0 sendmail insecure? (fwd)
To: questions@FreeBSD.org
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 07:30:02 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 818       
Sender: questions-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> From: Gary Palmer (FreeBSD/ARM Team) <gpalmer@freefall.cdrom.com>
> Sendmail 8.6.12 compiles out of the box on FreeBSD (after all, it's
> maintained by UCB - the people who wrote the origional BSD :-) ).
> 

Another option for sendmail which is sometimes overlooked is the use of
the TIS firewall kit pieces called "smap" and "smapd".

I have been running these since the identd thing.

Smap is a tiny smtp protocol engine that runs as uid "nobody" in a 
chrooted environment.  You can't do very much with it :-)

Smapd comes along later, verifies the message headers for politeness,
and then passes the message to sendmail.

Some sendmail policy wonks do not like it, but it seems to work.  It is
better than loosing sleep over what the next sendmail bug-o-the-month
will be.

Regards,

Mark Hittinger
bugs@win.net