"Patrick Bihan-Faou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Well I guess that this one is definitely elligible for the "qmail security >challenge". > >http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/qmail-challenge.html > > >If you don't count that as a bug in qmail, then I don't know what is a >bug... Sure, it's a bug. Dan didn't anticipate that spammers would set up MX's pointing to 0.0.0.0. But it's not a security bug, and it wouldn't have won the Security Challenge if it was still in effect. -Dave
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handlin... Peter van Dijk
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX ... paul
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX ... Mark Delany
- RE: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an... Patrick Bihan-Faou
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX ... Charles Cazabon
- RE: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX ... Virginia Chism
- RE: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an... Patrick Bihan-Faou
- The joy of Qmail qmail
- Re: The joy of Qmail Charles Cazabon
- RE: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX reco... Patrick Bihan-Faou
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of... Dave Sill
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of... paul
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of... Peter van Dijk
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of... D. J. Bernstein
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX reco... Pavel Kankovsky
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX ... Dan Peterson
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an... Pavel Kankovsky
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handlin... Vince Vielhaber
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX reco... Peter van Dijk
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX reco... Scott Gifford
- RE: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of... Greg Owen
