From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Mon Jul 1 12:21:56 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE25D15D9343 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 12:21:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter@boosten.org) Received: from smtpq1.mnd.mail.iss.as9143.net (smtpq1.mnd.mail.iss.as9143.net [212.54.34.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09E9774258 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 12:21:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter@boosten.org) Received: from [212.54.34.119] (helo=smtp11.mnd.mail.iss.as9143.net) by smtpq1.mnd.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1hhvJZ-0005c1-Fa; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 14:21:45 +0200 Received: from 84-25-247-31.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl ([84.25.247.31] helo=ra.boosten.org) by smtp11.mnd.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1hhvJZ-0004Uv-AE; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 14:21:45 +0200 Received: from amon.boosten.org (Amon.boosten.org [192.168.13.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ra.boosten.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CCB3B3433011; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 14:21:44 +0200 (CEST) From: Peter Boosten Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) Subject: Re: sendmail Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 14:21:44 +0200 In-Reply-To: Cc: Polytropon , freebsd-questions To: Roderick References: <20190630092535.7913d305.freebsd@edvax.de> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-SourceIP: 84.25.247.31 X-Ziggo-spambar: / X-Ziggo-spamscore: 0.0 X-Ziggo-spamreport: CMAE Analysis: v=2.3 cv=bcYVr9HB c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=JWBJsaPp29SgP5DpYRBqZw==:17 a=jpOVt7BSZ2e4Z31A5e1TngXxSK0=:19 a=0o9FgrsRnhwA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=sA-ssjpUAAAA:8 a=KNFoGfay12JKX1pHOLEA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=GoZNF5h-GWR8aIH5:21 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=MeU51efvtLpnGWnoXA2X:22 X-Ziggo-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Flag: No X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 09E9774258 X-Spamd-Bar: --- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.75 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:212.54.32.0/19]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; URI_COUNT_ODD(1.00)[3]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: boosten.dyndns.org]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[boosten.org:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[boosten.org,quarantine]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.95)[-0.949,0]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[gmail.com]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[164.34.54.212.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.1]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(-1.20)[ipnet: 212.54.32.0/20(-3.90), asn: 33915(-2.09), country: NL(0.01)]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[31.247.25.84.zen.spamhaus.org : 127.0.0.11]; ASN(0.00)[asn:33915, ipnet:212.54.32.0/20, country:NL]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[boosten.org:s=ra]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 12:21:56 -0000 > Op 1 jul. 2019, om 14:02 heeft Roderick het = volgende geschreven: >=20 >=20 > On Mon, 1 Jul 2019, Peter Boosten via freebsd-questions wrote: >=20 >> _and_ that sendmail is based on a single executable, while other MTAs >> spread the tasks over several. >=20 > Is that really so bad? Why people do not hammer exim, the standard MTA = in > debian, for the same reason? Does it have advantages that neutralizes = it? Exim has its share of vulnerabilities right now = (https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-rce-vulnerability-impacts-nearly-half-o= f-the-internets-email-servers/ = ). The thing with a single executable is that it runs as root, while with = postfix most services run as =E2=80=98postfix=E2=80=99. Peter=