From owner-freebsd-current Wed Jan 1 23:40: 8 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5601337B401 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 23:40:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from verdi.nethelp.no (verdi.nethelp.no [194.19.15.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B18D943EB2 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 23:40:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no) Received: (qmail 7933 invoked by uid 1001); 2 Jan 2003 07:40:03 +0000 (GMT) To: tlambert2@mindspring.com Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 5.0-RC2 informal PR: 90 sec sendmail delay From: sthaug@nethelp.no In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 01 Jan 2003 21:39:33 -0800" References: <3E13D095.FC52B758@mindspring.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.05+ on Emacs 19.34.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 08:40:03 +0100 Message-ID: <7931.1041493203@verdi.nethelp.no> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > If there are problems, the authors would like to hear > > about it directly, instead of reading it in some mailing > > list by accident... > > It's an editorial complaint. I don't like the breaking the > program into seperate programs by function. IMO, DJB is wrong, > and this does nothing to enhance security. It's not only DJB. Take a look at Postfix, which also has a good reputation for security. Postfix consists of separate programs with well defined privileges. Wietse Venema has been quite clear that such a separation was the only way he could guarantee the security of Postfix. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message