On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2001, Jean Francois Martinez wrote:
>
> > or software who is _structurally_ unsecure like sendmail?
>
> I personally don't understand it either, I've been pushing to replace it
> with postfix for quite a while.
>
> The main arguments I've heard against this is "we can't enforce changing
> smtp daemons on everyone", "some people need sendmail's special features"
> (/etc/sendmail.cf may be the most complicated file on a system, therefore
> it's also the most powerful ;) ), "sendmail is standard and used virtually
> everywhere" and "sendmail has been in use forever (therefore had much more
> testing)".
> The last argument actually makes some sense - there haven't been any
> critical security problems with sendmail lately.
Another defense of sendmail is the ubiquity of it. There are several
adaptations to the system. We use several, such as amavis
(www.amavis.org), rbl (http://maps.vix.com/) and in-house projects (I know
I'd have to rewrite a bunch of code if sendmail is abandoned).
There hasn't been a huge sendmail hole in quite some time. Personally,
I'd love to have a better print daemon (CUPS, perhaps?). I'm glad the old
BSD lpd is gone forever (thanks!), I had to excise that demonic "server"
on every RedHat machine in the past.
Also, kudos on the LSB progress in 7.x, it's great.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
