On Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 11:53:29AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 10:51:36AM -0400, Bennett Todd wrote: > > It's worse than that. The original version _did_ explicitly mention > > qmail (and Postfix) as replacements for sendmail that would settle > > the security problems. A subsequent revision removed them. > > It would be interesting to know the rationale for the change [was there > a security problem with postfix? was compatability with the "sendmail > standard" seen as the issue? did they buy into "all sendmail's security > bugs have been fixed" line? etc..]. Two remarks (none are dnscache related; sorry): I just saw a book from Peter Norton on computer security, and it recommends qmail as a secure replacement for sendmail (it mentions, but does not recommend postfix). How would you define "big site" for an MTA? Ohio State (the university with the most students in the US) runs qmail on its mail servers. This means 64,000 students. Mate
