On 3 December 2007, Amarendra Godbole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007 4:32 PM, Liviu Daia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 30 November 2007, Amarendra Godbole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > Please note that postfix does not undergo the rigorous code scrub
> > > that sendmail goe
Hi!
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 11:28:32AM +0530, Amarendra Godbole wrote:
>[...]
>As a second note, postfix as a standalone entity may be secure, but I
>am not sure how secure it will be if it starts interacting with some
>other piece of software. Also, from the top of my head I can say that
>postfi
On Nov 30, 2007 4:32 PM, Liviu Daia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 30 November 2007, Amarendra Godbole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Please note that postfix does not undergo the rigorous code scrub that
> > sendmail goes through.
> [...]
>
> Will you please cut the crap? Thank you.
>
>
On 13:31:27 Dec 03, RW wrote:
> Forget it.
> No, I'm not ordering you to. It's a tip.
> Given that the developers are ignoring this thread, my guess is that
> nothing is going to happen. It's all been said before.
Not true.
They just don't have the time.
> BTW I run or admin several mailservers.
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> > Why is everyone trying to come up with a solution to a problem that
> > doesn't exist?
>
> The 'problem' is a piece of software installed on the box that some of
> us don't use. It takes up space (how much?). Each MTA has its
> champions and its d
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 20:48:42 -0500, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 03:48:14PM -0700, Darren Spruell wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 2007 2:21 PM, Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 12:56:11PM -0700, Anthony Roberts wrote:
>> > > > I have seen several inst
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 03:48:14PM -0700, Darren Spruell wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2007 2:21 PM, Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 12:56:11PM -0700, Anthony Roberts wrote:
> > > > I have seen several installations of Postfix go catatonic due to spam
> > > > overload,
On Dec 2, 2007 2:21 PM, Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 12:56:11PM -0700, Anthony Roberts wrote:
> > > I have seen several installations of Postfix go catatonic due to spam
> > > overload, large messages, mailing list expansions, and other undiagnosed
> > > pro
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 12:56:11PM -0700, Anthony Roberts wrote:
> > I have seen several installations of Postfix go catatonic due to spam
> > overload, large messages, mailing list expansions, and other undiagnosed
> > problems. These were run by Postfix lovers, so I have always assumed
> > that t
> I have seen several installations of Postfix go catatonic due to spam
> overload, large messages, mailing list expansions, and other undiagnosed
> problems. These were run by Postfix lovers, so I have always assumed
> that the installation was correct. In the one case I saw tested
> replacing Pos
Antti Harri wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Uwe Dippel wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:49:48 -0500, Steve Shockley wrote:
It looks like that went away with the death of DEINSTALL. I don't use
it though so I didn't test it.
No, in 4.2 it still needs us to not forget this. Not a big deal overall,
b
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Uwe Dippel wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:49:48 -0500, Steve Shockley wrote:
It looks like that went away with the death of DEINSTALL. I don't use
it though so I didn't test it.
No, in 4.2 it still needs us to not forget this. Not a big deal overall,
but still something t
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:49:48 -0500, Steve Shockley wrote:
> It looks like that went away with the death of DEINSTALL. I don't use
> it though so I didn't test it.
No, in 4.2 it still needs us to not forget this. Not a big deal overall,
but still something that could be improved on.
Uwe
Please note that postfix does not undergo the rigorous code scrub
that sendmail goes through.
[...]
Will you please cut the crap? Thank you.
Unlike Sendmail, Postfix was written from scratch with security
in mind. It had only one published security flaw since its first
public release
On 30 November 2007, Geoff Steckel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Liviu Daia wrote:
> > On 30 November 2007, Amarendra Godbole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> Please note that postfix does not undergo the rigorous code scrub
> >> that sendmail goes through.
> > [...]
> >
> > Will you please c
Liviu Daia wrote:
On 30 November 2007, Amarendra Godbole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Please note that postfix does not undergo the rigorous code scrub that
sendmail goes through.
[...]
Will you please cut the crap? Thank you.
Unlike Sendmail, Postfix was written from scratch with secu
Hi Antti,
> Except that when doing package upgrade with pkg_add the sendmail
> configuration (in mailer.conf) will be restored and it won't be
> re-enabled until manually doing postfix-enable.
You have a point there. To me, however, this falls under the 'no magic'
clause. I try to use as many st
Antti Harri wrote:
Except that when doing package upgrade with pkg_add the sendmail
configuration (in mailer.conf) will be restored and it won't be
re-enabled until manually doing postfix-enable. At least it used to be
like that, correct me if the pkgtools has the needed features nowadays
to pr
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Nico Meijer wrote:
And what of the postfix-enable command? Is this good enough?
Almost. Apply the changes to rc.conf.local and root's crontab and you're
good to go.
Any upgrade can then be like any other regular upgrade; nothing to worry
about. No magic.
Except that wh
On 30 November 2007, Amarendra Godbole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Please note that postfix does not undergo the rigorous code scrub that
> sendmail goes through.
[...]
Will you please cut the crap? Thank you.
Unlike Sendmail, Postfix was written from scratch with security in
mind. It
Hi Juan,
> Am I making any sense?
Not to me. But it depends on your situation.
> Should I do anything special to sendmail when I install postfix?
No. Just follow the instructions after installing postfix.
> And what of the postfix-enable command? Is this good enough?
Almost. Apply the chan
On Nov 30, 2007 8:30 AM, Juan Miscaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, I would like to do away with sendmail as much as possible. I
> prefer postfix. Now I know that the sendmail binary is entwined with
> the system's internals but is there any way to completely get rid of
> it? I see that some
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Stefan Dengscherz wrote:
Also, don't forget to disable sendmail completely after enabling
postfix. "sendmail_flags=NO" in /etc/rc.conf.local and removing the
sendmail entry from root's crontab should do the job (plus stopping
existing sendmail processes).
Postfix uses the
Juan Miscaro wrote:
Hi, I would like to do away with sendmail as much as possible. I
prefer postfix. Now I know that the sendmail binary is entwined with
the system's internals but is there any way to completely get rid of
it? I see that some people remove the binary and turn it off in
rc.conf
Juan Miscaro wrote:
Hi, I would like to do away with sendmail as much as possible. I
prefer postfix. Now I know that the sendmail binary is entwined with
the system's internals but is there any way to completely get rid of
it?
Yes, but you don't want to. Recompile using skipdir and do a fres
Also, don't forget to disable sendmail completely after enabling
postfix. "sendmail_flags=NO" in /etc/rc.conf.local and removing the
sendmail entry from root's crontab should do the job (plus stopping
existing sendmail processes).
2007/11/30, Josh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> From memory after you inst
From memory after you install the postfix package, it tells you what to
do to run postfix instead of sendmail.
Sendmail binarys will still exist, but only postfix will be used, even
for when a sendmail command is issued, due to mailer.conf I think it is.
Juan Miscaro wrote:
Hi, I would like
27 matches
Mail list logo
