Tim Cutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > qmail is supposed to be more secure. Theoretically, exim's design > allegedly means there might be some security issues, but none have > been found yet. There has been argument about this ad nauseam on > the exim-users mailing list.
qmail also has stronger guarantees---djb would no doubt say, "the only guarantee"---of delivery than any of the other systems---it doesn't return a response until it's sync'd the file to disc. > My own feeling is that the primary disadvantage with qmail is that > Dan decided that sendmail was awful (with some justification) and > proceeded to change a lot of things whether they needed it or not. > I am, for example, irritated that qmail's forwarding file is called > .qmail. What was the point of that? Does changing the name from > .forward to .qmail really improve security? No, but it reinforces the idea that you're "not in Kansas, anymore", which *can* be valuable. Mike. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .