Re: Debian's mail daemons
Tim Cutts <tjrc1@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk> writes:
> qmail is supposed to be more secure. Theoretically, exim's design
> allegedly means there might be some security issues, but none have
> been found yet. There has been argument about this ad nauseam on
> the exim-users mailing list.
qmail also has stronger guarantees---djb would no doubt say, "the only
guarantee"---of delivery than any of the other systems---it doesn't
return a response until it's sync'd the file to disc.
> My own feeling is that the primary disadvantage with qmail is that
> Dan decided that sendmail was awful (with some justification) and
> proceeded to change a lot of things whether they needed it or not.
> I am, for example, irritated that qmail's forwarding file is called
> .qmail. What was the point of that? Does changing the name from
> .forward to .qmail really improve security?
No, but it reinforces the idea that you're "not in Kansas, anymore",
which *can* be valuable.
Mike.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: