On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 10:16:27AM -0500, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> Could you be slightly more specific?
perhaps checking vulnerabilities reported compared
to other products. see also how frequent the fixes are,
since some bug fixes can also improve security
(some bugs can be used as security hol
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 10:04:54AM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Tom Bombadil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-04 03:00]:
> > > exim is an insecure piece of shit that makes old sendmail look good.
> > > besides, it is not free.
> >
> > Curiosity here since we are exim users... what makes it insecu
* Tom Bombadil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-04 03:00]:
> > exim is an insecure piece of shit that makes old sendmail look good.
> > besides, it is not free.
>
> Curiosity here since we are exim users... what makes it insecure?
rotten design and bad implementation, to begin with?
> Should we be
> exim is an insecure piece of shit that makes old sendmail look good.
> besides, it is not free.
Curiosity here since we are exim users... what makes it insecure?
Should we be really worried about running it?
Cheers,
g.
On Nov 30, 2007 6:16 PM, Pieter Verberne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just before it was in public domain:
> Did someone asked the author if it was accepted to put a BSD-like
> license on it? He allowed us to share and modify the software but had no
> official document about is (a license). I think
Hi!
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 11:16:37AM +0100, Pieter Verberne wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 09:15:34AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>> On 2007/11/30 10:41, Lars Noodin wrote:
>> > qmail
>> never had a license - now it's in the public domain it's allowed
>> to distribute it, but I don't like t
Hi!
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 11:26:47AM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
>sendmail is the only one of them beeing BSD-licensed.
Sendmail *used* to be BSD-licensed. There *is* a reason it got moved to
.../gnu/... in the source tree even if its current license isn't exactly
gpl. But its current license
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 09:15:34AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2007/11/30 10:41, Lars Noodin wrote:
> > qmail
>
> never had a license - now it's in the public domain it's allowed
> to distribute it, but I don't like to imagine what misc@ would look
> like after the following release if it
* Lars Noodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-11-30 10:07]:
> Tobias Weisserth wrote:
> >
> > ... I just wanted to point out that D.J. Bernstein has
> > put qmail in public domain. ...
>
> I'm curious about why sendmail was chosen to be in the default setup
> over Postfix, Exim or qmail. These all ha
On Nov 30, 2007 9:38 AM, Matthew Dempsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Ugh, I wish I had noticed this message a few minutes earlier.)
>
> On 11/29/07, Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I just wanted to point out that D.J. Bernstein has put qmail in public
> > domain. I'm not implying
On 2007/11/30 10:41, Lars Noodin wrote:
> Postfix,
the license isn't good for base
> Exim
the license isn't good for base
> qmail
never had a license - now it's in the public domain it's allowed
to distribute it, but I don't like to imagine what misc@ would look
like after the following releas
The most logical step to me seems to be readding qmail and other
DJB tools to ports.
# Han
On 2007/11/30 01:56, Tobias Weisserth wrote:
> sendmail (GNU GPL)
Despite being in /usr/src/gnu, Sendmail is not GPL.
> qmail's security record is better and many OpenBSD users prefer it
> to sendmail.
And many don't. Maybe it's time to put it back into ports, though.
(Ugh, I wish I had noticed this message a few minutes earlier.)
On 11/29/07, Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just wanted to point out that D.J. Bernstein has put qmail in public
> domain. I'm not implying anything but wouldn't it be a perfect opportunity
> to get rid of sendmail (G
Tobias Weisserth wrote:
>
> ... I just wanted to point out that D.J. Bernstein has
> put qmail in public domain. ...
I'm curious about why sendmail was chosen to be in the default setup
over Postfix, Exim or qmail. These all have improved a lot and it may
be time for a re-evaluation.
-Lars
Hi everybody,
I just wanted to point out that D.J. Bernstein has put qmail in public
domain. I'm not implying anything but wouldn't it be a perfect opportunity
to get rid of sendmail (GNU GPL) and have qmail as the standard MTA in
OpenBSD? qmail's security record is better and many OpenBSD users p
16 matches
Mail list logo
