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 clamav. Peter -- http://www.boosten.org _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"