I wrote:
># * Qmail is probably also more inviting to hackers, just because it's more
># human.
#I really doubt it. If you were a hacker, would you go after the SMTP
#daemon with a long, documented history of successful exploits, with
#exploit code available on the Web, or the one with no history of
#successful exploits?
>The 1000 dollar reward for hacking qmail was never claimed
Both good points.
But sendmail is also a worldwide standard ...
After all, it's not _easy_ to hack sendmail, the hacks are
just publically available.
Anyway, qmail is for now proven to be
much more safe than sendmail.
Point for you.
[snip]
># Sendmail, after all, was working fine.
>until the next security hole is found....
:-) Very true.
cu
*PIKE*
"I think, therefor I Mac"
���������������������������������
�================��---------------�
�========�======��------�---------�
�========�=====��-------�---------�
�========�====��--------�---------�
�============��-------------------�
�===========��--------------------�
�===========���������-------------�
�=================��--------------�
�================��---------------�
�===============��----------------�
�=====���=======��-------���------�
�========����������������---------�
�===============��----------------�
�================��---------------�
���������������������������������
��
