Peter Boosten wrote:
The most recent vulnerabilities of Postfix are from August and September
2008, and I still use it. Also I use (with great happyness) Sendmail on
two machines, without any problems. The only problem ever caused was by
clamav.
Would be interesting to know, what kind of
On 30 nov 2008, at 13:51, Ott Köstner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Boosten wrote:
The most recent vulnerabilities of Postfix are from August and
September
2008, and I still use it. Also I use (with great happyness)
Sendmail on
two machines, without any problems. The only problem ever
Ott K?stner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Boosten wrote:
The most recent vulnerabilities of Postfix are from August and September
2008, and I still use it. Also I use (with great happyness) Sendmail on
two machines, without any problems. The only problem ever caused was by
clamav.
Would
Jerry McAllister([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.11.24 14:38:19 -0500:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 12:36:50PM -0500, Dan wrote:
Kelly Jones([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.11.22 14:16:56 -0700:
What Unix program sends email directly, using the MX record of the
recipient, instead of using sendmail
On 29 nov 2008, at 17:03, Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It's not prejudicial. I do not wish to start yet another MTA flamewar,
but you can't deny Sendmail's poor security, design, performance, and
complex configuration. The poor security history is there, the poor
funnel design and conf
Peter Boosten([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.11.29 17:34:28 +0100:
It's not prejudicial. I do not wish to start yet another MTA flamewar,
but you can't deny Sendmail's poor security, design, performance, and
complex configuration. The poor security history is there, the poor
funnel design and conf
Dan wrote:
Peter Boosten([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.11.29 17:34:28 +0100:
It's not prejudicial. I do not wish to start yet another MTA flamewar,
but you can't deny Sendmail's poor security, design, performance, and
complex configuration. The poor security history is there, the poor
funnel
Sendmail/Postfix/Exim/et al should suffice.
Take ure pick and use the one who's conf file you prefer.
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Kelly Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What Unix program sends email directly, using the MX record of the
recipient, instead of using sendmail
Kelly Jones([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.11.22 14:16:56 -0700:
What Unix program sends email directly, using the MX record of the
recipient, instead of using sendmail or an installed MTA?
Sendmail/Sendwhale sucks for just about anything. There are much better
MTAs out there. For your needs, I think
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 12:36:50PM -0500, Dan wrote:
Kelly Jones([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.11.22 14:16:56 -0700:
What Unix program sends email directly, using the MX record of the
recipient, instead of using sendmail or an installed MTA?
Sendmail/Sendwhale sucks for just about anything
recipient, instead of using sendmail or an installed MTA?
Sendmail/Sendwhale sucks for just about anything. There are much better
as i like programs that sucks, i use sendmail everywhere.
it's perfect
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
What Unix program sends email directly, using the MX record of the
recipient, instead of using sendmail or an installed MTA?
I realize I could tweak sendmail.cf/etc to do this, but that's not
working in my (fairly unusual) special situation.
I also realize that sending email directly is normally
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:16:56 -0700
Kelly Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What Unix program sends email directly, using the MX record of the
recipient, instead of using sendmail or an installed MTA?
I realize I could tweak sendmail.cf/etc to do this, but that's not
working in my (fairly
13 matches
Mail list logo
