From: Rask Ingemann Lambertsen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Let's see. this endless argument seems to be hammering home that
> > Redhat feels that Sendmail + RPM is more secure than qmail without
> > RPM.
>
> No. You missed the point by a country mile. For a start, have a look at
> <URL:ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/qmail/dist.html>.
>
Come, this is stupid. No one could disagree with what Dan says on that
page. He's right on target. People keep telling me that Redhat is
distributing 'enterprise unix', secure, easy to use unix for the
masses. Well, they aren't, and it's not Dan's fault, as some people
have hysterically tried to say.
Sheesh, sendmail? It's not like qmail and sendmail are the only two
alternatives. I ran zmailer for years before I switched to
qmail. zmailer is probably still better than sendmail --- I think Parc
still uses it. Why don't they distribute that, if they are so
concerned with security?
sdb
