Dan wrote:
> 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

Hmmm: ERROR, "null" is not valid. The CVE either does not exist or is
not in the format of CVE-XXX-XXXX.

The most recent vulnerabilities of Postfix are from August and September
2008, and I still use it. Also I use (with great happyness) Sendmail on
two machines, without any problems. The only problem ever caused was by


freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to