Quoting Scott Moynes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > * Michael Marziani ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> There have been no security hacks to qmail for over 3 years. >> Sendmail certainly can't say that. > > Depends what your definition of "security hacks" is. > http://www-dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/~ma/qmail-bugs.html FYI: One qmail fan (I'm -not- one) posted a rejoinder here: http://www.geocrawler.com/mail/msg.php3?msg_id=9506623&list=513 Summary: Some items supposedly wrong, some supposedly don't matter, most are acknowledged to be actual qmail violations of RFCs and/or interferences with common practices (but that the qmail fan argues against). Ted Cabeen's comment in this space is hereby acknowedged -- about qmail avoiding many security bugs unless patched/extended, and then being subject to them. See also comments on qmail feature-poverty here: http://www.courier-mta.org/history.html Odd that qmail people characteristically compare only against sendmail. Even Dan: "qmail is a modern SMTP server which [sic] makes sendmail obsolete..." (near top of qmail home page). Aren't the more-natural security comparisons qmail/postfix (modular) and exim/sendmail/courierd (monolithic)? My attempt at relatively dispassionate MTA-comparison notes: http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/mtas -- Cheers, Rick Moen FORTH heart if honk then. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
