* Nicholas E. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [21/09/2003 1657EDT]: > It's probably worth noting that exim has a history of buffer overflow > attacks and/including root vulnerabilities. Some of that history is > very recent. > > Postfix sounds like a reasonable alternative to qmail, though I've not > tried it and cannot recommend it. I would recommend going with qmail, > as it is very easy to install, configure, etc. The qmail author is > against parsing (as he says it is an open invitation to security > holes), so he puts each config option in a separate file. I like > that. If you're using a modern filesystem such as XFS, you don't need > to worry about running out of inodes.
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/guarantee.html At the very least, that entire page is worth reading by anyone who has any desire to run secure, reliable (even over NFS, ala LTSP), and fast mail exchangers: "In March 1997, I offered $500 to the first person to publish a verifiable security hole in the latest version of qmail: for example, a way for a user to exploit qmail to take over another account. My offer still stands. Nobody has found any security holes in qmail." If more folks were as commonsensical a programmer as DJB the Internet would be a much safer place. Regards, krjw. -- Keith R. John Warno [k r j w at optonline dot net]
