Re: [SAtalk] Re: RaQ3, sitewide and forwarding.

2002-07-01 Thread Tony L. Svanstrom
On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 the voices made Derrick 'dman' Hudson write: > On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 03:10:51AM +0200, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: > | > At 06/30/2002 14:25, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: > | > > | > > Sorry for the noice, but even something as simple as finding the > | > > local version of sendmai

Re: [SAtalk] Re: RaQ3, sitewide and forwarding.

2002-07-01 Thread Michael Leone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 30 Jun 2002 at 23:33, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote: > > | reliable, > > sendmail is, I think, the MTA with the most security holes (in its > lifetime). At least, I have heard of a great many holes in sendmail, > but not nearly as many in exim, p

[SAtalk] Re: RaQ3, sitewide and forwarding.

2002-06-30 Thread Derrick 'dman' Hudson
On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 11:54:58PM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote: | On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 10:52:53PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote: | > Why do these "prebuilt" systems all use sendmail? I've heard enough | | sendmail is the godfather of email on the Internet? ;) The PDP-7 is the godfather

Re: [SAtalk] Re: RaQ3, sitewide and forwarding.

2002-06-30 Thread Theo Van Dinter
On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 10:52:53PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote: > Why do these "prebuilt" systems all use sendmail? I've heard enough sendmail is the godfather of email on the Internet? ;) it's scalable, reliable, and currently handles the majority of all Internet email traffic? > horro

[SAtalk] Re: RaQ3, sitewide and forwarding.

2002-06-30 Thread Derrick 'dman' Hudson
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 03:10:51AM +0200, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: | > At 06/30/2002 14:25, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: | > | > > Sorry for the noice, but even something as simple as finding the | > > local version of sendmail.mc nearly drow me nuts, so I thought | > > I'd ask if anyone's had the dis