hmm, on Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 04:25:25PM -0400, Eric Furman said that > > On 2011-08-30 19.27, frantisek holop wrote: > > > the ports i personally dont care if it's in base or ports. sendmail and > > > apache are really the only things in openbsd base that baffle me > > > everytime i cross paths with them. they represent everything the > > > openbsd philosophy refuses. > > What exactly is wrong with sendmail? Could you elaborate? > Can you demonstrate how much less secure it is compared > to any other alternative?
this is not strictly about security but sendmail as a system to configure and maintain and support. everybody's mileage varies, so if you happy with your sendmail, just murmur "poor guy" and move on. but what is wrong with sendmail? whole books have been written about that. where do you want to start? the monster monolithic structure? the "configuration" process? why would i _not_ use another free alternative with a spotless security record, that has small, isolated processes communicating with each other in chroot, outputting very nice logs, having human readable configuration with fantastic documentation and as an added bonus an amazing mailing list where the author himself helps you out in difficult situations? .. because that sounds like all the other openbsd daemons to me.. -f ps. ok, some really really die hard openbsd fans would not use it because it doesn't have pf-inspired syntax :] (but neither does sendmail) -- number of vulcans to replace a bulb? precisely 1.000000.
