Re: Debian's mail daemons

1997-06-22 Thread Kai Henningsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Budde) wrote on 21.06.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Am 20.06.97 schrieb kai # khms.westfalen.de ... Moin Kai! KH I completely fail to understand why a professional system administrator KH would _want_ to use a MTA that's _that_ notorious for security holes. My KH idea of

Re: Debian's mail daemons

1997-06-20 Thread Kai Henningsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Budde) wrote on 16.06.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Am 16.06.97 schrieb efraim # argh.org ... Moin Alexander! AK sendmail: too complicated That's wrong. It's very easy to configure sendmail with the m4 scripts for a leaf site. And professionell system adminstrators

Re: Debian's mail daemons

1997-06-18 Thread Philip Hands
Hi, This discussion seems to keep getting side tracked with ``program X does not support feature Y'' type statements. In the case of qmail at least, I'd just like to emphasise that every feature that I've wanted (or seen asked for on the qmail list), that is not explicitly included in

Re: Debian's mail daemons

1997-06-18 Thread Thomas Koenig
Philip Hands wrote: I think we should seriously consider using qmail as our default MTA. It's only real weakness lies in it's documentation, and that should be reasonably easy to fix. AFAIK, qmail is highly antisocial WRT the number of connections it forces on a recipient host. This is not

Re: Debian's mail daemons

1997-06-18 Thread Richard Kaszeta
I think we should also consider switching to Maildir/ format for mail drops, since it seems to be the only way for delivering mail securely over NFS. I think we should try to stick with solutions that work with both Maildir and central spool directories, since otherwise it is difficult to

Re: Debian's mail daemons

1997-06-18 Thread Santiago Vila Doncel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Philip Hands wrote: I think we should also consider switching to Maildir/ format for mail drops, since it seems to be the only way for delivering mail securely over NFS. procmail does also deliver mail securely over NFS. (At least this

Re: Debian's mail daemons

1997-06-18 Thread Philip Hands
I think we should also consider switching to Maildir/ format for mail drops, since it seems to be the only way for delivering mail securely over NFS. I think we should try to stick with solutions that work with both Maildir and central spool directories, since otherwise it is difficult to

Re: Debian's mail daemons

1997-06-18 Thread Philip Hands
Philip Hands wrote: I think we should seriously consider using qmail as our default MTA. It's only real weakness lies in it's documentation, and that should be reasonably easy to fix. AFAIK, qmail is highly antisocial WRT the number of connections it forces on a recipient host. This

Re: Debian's mail daemons

1997-06-18 Thread Bruce Perens
From: Thomas Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED] AFAIK, qmail is highly antisocial WRT the number of connections it forces on a recipient host. It hasn't had this problem for several revisions. It limits the number of connections it tries to one system so that it won't hang a bunch of mail delivery

Re: Debian's mail daemons

1997-06-16 Thread Rob Browning
Alexander Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (I'd vote for exim if uucp is guaranteed to work) Ok, so what are the arguments for exim over qmail (at least why do you prefer it?) I've heard arguments for qmail and exim over sendmail. -- Rob -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the

Re: Debian's mail daemons

1997-06-16 Thread Tim Cutts
On 15 Jun 1997, Rob Browning wrote: Alexander Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (I'd vote for exim if uucp is guaranteed to work) Ok, so what are the arguments for exim over qmail (at least why do you prefer it?) I've heard arguments for qmail and exim over sendmail. qmail is supposed

Re: Debian's mail daemons

1997-06-16 Thread Carey Evans
Tim Cutts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [snip] I am, for example, irritated that qmail's forwarding file is called .qmail. What was the point of that? Does changing the name from .forward to .qmail really improve security? [snip] qmail does not understand anything but the most simple

Re: Debian's mail daemons

1997-06-16 Thread Michael Alan Dorman
Tim Cutts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: qmail is supposed to be more secure. Theoretically, exim's design allegedly means there might be some security issues, but none have been found yet. There has been argument about this ad nauseam on the exim-users mailing list. qmail also has stronger

Re: Debian's mail daemons

1997-06-16 Thread Kai Henningsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Alan Dorman) wrote on 15.06.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: My two personal reservations: 1) I think Daniel J. Bernstein (qmail's author) doesn't seem to know how to have a technical discussion without seeming as if he's tacking an implicit you stupid idiot on to the

Re: Debian's mail daemons

1997-06-15 Thread Michael Alan Dorman
Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does anyone know of any document comparing comparing sendmail, exim, and qmail. The recent discussions and some upcoming installs here have made me start contemplating the issue again. I don't think there's a FAQ, and I don't think it could be objective