Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 13:06:04 -0800 From: "Chris H" <portmaster@BSDforge.com> To: "Kurt Jaeger" <lists@opsec.eu> Cc: <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check Message-ID: <3d6a0f2bf42334313a40264b80aad46b@udns.ultimatedns.net> In-Reply-To: <20171211194511.GD2827@home.opsec.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 20:45:11 +0100 "Kurt Jaeger" <lists@opsec=2Eeu> said > Hi! >=20 > > Let me attempt to make my point another way (and stay closer to topic)=2E > > A user is able to accomplish more from sendmail in base, than with any > > other MX port in base alone=2E > [list of sendmail features shortend for brevity] >=20 > > Many of the other MX software in the ports tree provide a subset of > > the shortlist I mentioned above=2E But none of them offer them all=2E >=20 > So if sendmail is a pkg/port, it would still have those features ? >=20 > Is a >=20 > pkg install sendmail >=20 > such a huge step ? And btw, even if sendmail has all those features, > I can tell you that even when I first attend my first sendmail workshop, > approx=2E 27 years ago, I still would not know how to implement them > with sendmail=2E >=20 > > I were an MX administrator=2E Would I not want all the options/help > > I could get to defend myself against attack? >=20 > I still don't get the difference if sendmail would be a port/pkg=2E >=20 > Oh, btw, if sendmail can do all this, wouldn't it be useful to > have a suitable config that does all this right out of the box ? >=20 > Because, honestly, I would not know how to enable all those features=2E=2E=2E >=20 > > True=2E But if I'm selling a Server targeted OS=2E Don't I want to > > advocate server grade services? >=20 > But the distribution channel of the software for that service > (base or port) does not sound as the relevant factor for the > end-user, or does it ? OK=2E So if I'm understanding this all correctly; All the (FreeBSD) worlds a package=2E So what am I arguing for Sendmail in base for? It makes no sense -- everything's a package=2E Am I getting warmer? :-) If so=2E Then where does it end? How many packages must I install to get a "standard" Server install? I'm going to want cp(1), fsck(8), mkdir(1), gpart(8),=2E=2E=2E Wow! filling /bin/, and /sbin/ will take an awful lot of packages, and I haven't had time to consider /usr/bin/, and /usr/sbin/ ! ;-) As I understand it, the $BASE package is going to amount to what one would expect, and need to get (at least) a usable system=2E IMHO *mail* is an important part of *any* system=2E Oh wait=2E This is intended as part of a simple *desktop* system? Because that's the audience FreeBSD is currently targeting? OK than no *real* need for a robust MX there=2E As they'll likely just be using their ISP for an MX, and only *really* need a MX *client*=2E OK that makes more sense=2E :P I'm only advocating that if $BASE is intended for a reasonable/minimal Server base install=2E That an MX *is* an important part of that definition, and that Sendmail be *that* MX=2E :-) Thanks for playing along, Kurt=2E :-) --Chris P=2ES=2E Indeed=2E Sendmail, *can* be installed as a package, and still work, as I think, can *anything* else=2E But *where* does it all end -- It's *mad* I tell ya! >=20 > --=20 > pi@opsec=2Eeu +49 171 3101372 3 years to= go > !
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3d6a0f2bf42334313a40264b80aad46b>