Peter Boosten([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.11.29 17:34:28 +0100: >> It's not prejudicial. I do not wish to start yet another MTA flamewar, >> but you can't deny Sendmail's poor security, design, performance, and >> complex configuration. The poor security history is there, the poor >> funnel design and conf files that require a scripting language are >> obviously ugly. > > Yeah, in 1845 it was. Sendmail is as secure as any other mta. And using
Simply not true. Sendmail has had TONS of remote vulnerabilities. Many people have fallen victims to exploits and had their servers rooted. The recent one is of 20006. http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?execution=e2s1 qmail has never had a remote root vulnerability or a similar flaw because it's designed with security in mind. Sendmail never was. _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"