On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 03:28:43PM -0700, Sudhakar Chandra wrote: > > One item of the baggage Sendmail still has not gotten rid of is > the butt ugly configuration. Apart from bakward compatibility, > is there ANY reason why sendmail.cf is so cryptic? >
I read a long while ago at some place that the reason for a semi- binary config file is to avoid tinkering. The file "sendmail.cf" should be treated as a binary, and any tinkering to be done is through sendmail.mc on which you need to run m4. A bit convoluted a process rather than an editable ASCII file, but it works just as well if not better in this non-tinkerable fashion. > > I'm not talking about security holes in Sendmail from 10+ years > ago. I'm talking about security holes in sendmail as recent as > 3-4 years ago. > Don't think there are any security issues Version 8.12.xx onwards and permissions are quite restrictive. There was some memory leak issue which was fixed within a week ... Ver 8.12.5 seems abs okay from the security angle, and memory leak. However, I may be wrong here ... if anybody knows any security probs, please chip in. Bish -- : ####[ Linux One Stanza Tip (LOST) ]########################### Sub : Inodes on a partition LOST #319 To find out the number of inodes on existing partitions, the number you have used, percentage of inodes used and the number still free; try: 'df -i' ####<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>############################### : ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ linux-india-help mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-india-help
