On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 19:06, steve wrote:
> Well Matthew Miller, I'd have to concur, and do some co-ranting.
> Especially about it's crypticness. (Yes I know that's not a real word,
> but I think it communicates.) As far as I recall it was not even
> intended to become a real product but was a proof of concept of what
> could be done with UUCP (or something similar).
>
Firstly, only my mother called me Matthew (and only when she was upset
with me), so I have to infer you were somehow peeved by my commentary. I
don't believe in any way I was challenging the fact that one piece
software may be better than another. I still believe sendmail can be
secured if certain security practices are followed.
Secondly, does it mean I think sendmail is the only viable MTA solution?
No, I believe in sticking with what has worked for me in the past and
what I am comfortable with. All applications are inherently insecure by
the nature of being exposed to the outside world. Period.
> When I go to buy a car I don't pick the brand that has the reputation of
> falling apart in the past, even though their new models look really
> nice. Not when I can buy one that has an excellent track record and is
> easy to service. Well these are my views (analergies*) on the subject
> of Sendmail vs Qmail.
Finally, the word is analogy. If you follow the provided link and go to
number 6., you'll see the correct spelling. Resourcefulness is a must
for all good admins:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=analergies
-- Matt Miller Systems Administrator MP TotalCare gpg public key id: 08BC7B06
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:54:04 EDT