On Fri, 2016-03-11 at 08:35 +0100, Dolf Schimmel, TransIP wrote:
> They surely could. In fact that's how we've been doing it for a long
> time now. But they also want to lock down things as much as possible. In
> our case we decided to disallow PHP from doing any forking and put it in
> a (noexec)
> From: Ángel González
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 21:12, Ángel González wrote:
> I don't think more than a direct SMTP transport will be needed (LMTP
> perhaps?), but it seems a good idea that #29629 can finally be fixed.
>
These would indeed be a few examples. Although there's of course als
On Sun, 2016-02-28 at 17:55 +, Dolf Schimmel wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> I'm planning to create an RFC on this shortly, but would like to gauge
> the initial response first.
>
> Currently whenever an email is sent through the mail() function it is
> sent by an invocation of a sendmail-compatible exec
I don't think more than a direct SMTP transport will be needed (LMTP
perhaps?), but it seems a good idea that #29629 can finally be fixed.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Howdy,
I'm planning to create an RFC on this shortly, but would like to gauge the
initial response first.
Currently whenever an email is sent through the mail() function it is sent by
an invocation of a sendmail-compatible executable. However, there are
scenario's in which an alternative tran
