On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:01:03 PST, Daniel Sichel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The downside is the suckers run sendmail. It is in a jail but still... > Its sendmail. Anybody out there who has substituted Qmail on one of > these? If not, any advise on what stupid things I can avoid while > configuring these. I say these because we are in a high availability > scenario. At which point, you *really* have to ask yourself which is more *total* risk: 1) Running a fully patched Sendmail on it. (If the vendor's sendmail *ISNT* fully patched, I have to question the wisdom of buying *FIREWALL* gear from them at all) 2) Risking breaking stuff by replacing it with qmail. Remember - sooner or later, you'll be wanting to apply a vendor patch, and if it assumes sendmail is installed... well... things can get ugly... And that's something you don't want in an HA situation. Spending 20 minutes with somebody over a beer brainstorming will come up with lots of OTHER ways you can accidentally scrozzle yourself (anybody ever replaced a *nix vendor's default root shell with /usr/local/bin/fancy-shell-du-jour, and been screwed to the wall when /usr/local didn't fsck clean? ;)
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
