On Friday 20 September 2002 11:31, Matt Miller wrote:
> 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
Nah, not at all. : ) And I might very well have gotten the wrong Matt.
I'm not upset with either one of you. Yet... (Just kidding!)
> 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.
I agreed with your assessment... Qmail is far easier to maintain than
sendmail. Procmail too for that matter. Of course all pgms that talk
over a network are at risk. Some are easier to deal with than others.
Just thought it'd be fun to chime in on what you were saying.
> > 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
Thank you, my online dict did not find it. I might switch to yours!
-- Steve_____________________________________________________________ HTML in e-mail is not safe. It let's spammers know to spam you more, and sets you up for online attack through IE 4.x and above. Using HTML in e-mail promotes it as safe to the uninitiated.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:55:34 EDT