>There hasn't been a huge sendmail hole in quite some time. Personally,
>I'd love to have a better print daemon (CUPS, perhaps?).
Yes, please.
Conrad.
___
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo
Ingo Luetkebohle wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 09:02:40PM +0100, Jean Francois Martinez wrote:
> > _structurally_ unsecure like sendmail? By structurally unsecure I
> > mean big setuid root program. The more code you have running setuid
> > root the greater the chances a bug will have cata
Jean-Francois,
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 12:44:03AM +0100, Jean Francois Martinez wrote:
> Not having to read the bat book would do wonders for their workload.
Please: "my MTA is better than yours" won't get us anywhere. I never
read the bat book and for M4 macros, you don't have to. Thats what I
Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 23 Jan 2001, Jean Francois Martinez wrote:
>
> > Isn't RedHat playing with fire and making us play with fire by using
> > software who is either a regular provider of security problems ie
> > wu-ftpd (what is wrong with proftpd?)
Many secu
On Tue Jan 23 2001 at 17:20, Matt Fahrner wrote:
> At any rate, as I said I don't mind if other options are there as well,
> but I think sendmail should remain.
Agree 100%.
But it should be one option of several mail server packages on
offer. (Which may bring up the issue of "distribution bloa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Isn't RedHat playing with fire and making us play with fire by using
> software
If you don't like Red Hat Linux, go use something else. OpenBSD maybe, We've
had this debate before and before and
--
Cheers
John Summerfield
http://www2.ami.com.au/ for OS/2 & linux
Though I have no issue with offering an option other than "sendmail", I
wouldn't want to see "sendmail" go away. We pretty much use the same
"sendmail" configs on all of our heterogeneous systems including Suns
and wouldn't want to have to port "postfix" or something to all of our
non-Linux system
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 09:02:40PM +0100, Jean Francois Martinez wrote:
> Isn't RedHat playing with fire and making us play with fire by using
> software who is either a regular provider of security problems ie
> wu-ftpd (what is wrong with proftpd?) or software who is
> _structurally_ unsecure li
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2001, Jean Francois Martinez wrote:
>
> > or software who is _structurally_ unsecure like sendmail?
>
> I personally don't understand it either, I've been pushing to replace it
> with postfix for quite a while.
>
> The main arguments
Jean Francois Martinez ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> Isn't RedHat playing with fire and making us play with fire by using software
> who is either a regular provider of security problems ie wu-ftpd (what is wrong
> with proftpd?)
The fact that proftpd has been a) historically worse b) unmaintained
On 23 Jan 2001, Jean Francois Martinez wrote:
> Isn't RedHat playing with fire and making us play with fire by using
> software who is either a regular provider of security problems ie
> wu-ftpd (what is wrong with proftpd?)
proftpd is at least as much of a security problem as wu-ftpd.
Take a lo
Jean Francois Martinez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:05:41 +0100 (CET), Bernhard Rosenkraenzer said:
>
> > On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Albert E. Whale wrote:
> >
> > > Today I found that several unwanted guests have been able to connect via
> > > ftp (not any more!). I also
12 matches
Mail list logo
