From owner-freebsd-security  Thu Jan  9 18:26:45 1997
Return-Path: <owner-security>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id SAA07654
          for security-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 18:26:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spitfire.ecsel.psu.edu (qmailr@spitfire.ecsel.psu.edu [146.186.218.51])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id SAA07648
          for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 18:26:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 13642 invoked by uid 1000); 10 Jan 1997 02:27:50 -0000
Message-ID: <19970110022750.13641.qmail@spitfire.ecsel.psu.edu>
To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
cc: lyndon@esys.ca, moke@fools.ecpnet.com, freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: sendmail running non-root SUCCESS 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:48:39 +1030."
             <199701092318.JAA28530@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> 
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 21:27:49 -0500
From: Dan Cross <tenser@spitfire.ecsel.psu.edu>
Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > Perhaps I'm being naive here, but what's the pressure to stick with
> > sendmail?  Why not move to a more reliable and efficient MTA, like
> > Qmail?
> 
> Please don't drag this one out _again_.  Go off and read the -security 
> mail archive if you want the text of the discussion.
> 
> BTW, Peter, where's that handbook entry you were going to write on
> Qmail? 

I did, and unless I didn't search deeply enough, the questions raised
still seemed relatively unanswered.

It doesn't really make a difference; wether or not one uses qmail
or foomail is immaterial.  But I'd think that it would make more
sense to investigate another mailer before going off and reinventing
large chunks of sendmail.

Or, we could all go off and get copies of PMDF for FreeBSD.  :-) :-) :-)

	- Dan C.