On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Gerhard Mack wrote: > > PS I wish someone would explain to me why distros insist on using WU > instead given it's horrid security record. I think it's a case of "better the devil you know..". Think of all the security scares sendmail has historically had. But it's a pretty secure piece of work now - and people know if backwards and forward. Few people advocate switching from sendmail these days (sure, they do exist, but what I'm saying is that a long track record that includes security issues isn't necessarily bad, if it has gotten fixed). Of course, you may be right on wuftpd. It obviously wasn't designed with security in mind, other alternatives may be better. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Is sendfile all that sexy? jamal
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Ingo Molnar
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? jamal
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Ingo Molnar
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Linus Torvalds
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Ingo Molnar
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Linus Torvalds
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Ingo Molnar
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Gerhard Mack
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Linus Torvalds
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? J Sloan
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? H. Peter Anvin
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Michael Peddemors
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Florian Weimer
- RE: Is sendfile all that sexy? Tristan Greaves
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Dan Hollis
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Jonathan Thackray
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Matti Aarnio
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? H. Peter Anvin
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? dean gaudet