[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>
[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 adminstra
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 dae
> 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 is what the docume
> 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 ho
> >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 difficul
-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
>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 maint
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
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 qmail
[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
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
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 simpl
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
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
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 object
16 matches
Mail list logo
