Re: sendmail trouble
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, James Vahn wrote:
> Sendmail/Exim/Postfix/Smail have all had security vulnerabilities
> reported as recent as this year.
yup ... xxx is not usually better than yyy for certain metrics ..
- being better at one thing doesn't mean its "better" in general
- a working system is my "metric" for what works and how long it takes
to get there, and how many vulnerabilities was in fact exploited
successfully in the same time period ( last 3 mon, last year )
- people should hopefully learn from grandpa sendmail mistakes
> The examples I can think of are very few. Using m4 macro's is not
> complicated.. Exim is complicated.
m4 is trivially simple, once you figure out what to put where
at least in terms of sendmail macros
editing sendmail.cf directly implies either you're an expert or the
town !@#$% :-) -- and should NOT be the reason why xxx mta is better
- i played with postfix/exim/qmail/smail ...
and they all have "config" problems ... most do not work
out of the box by simply installing it but its getting there
- than add messy things like which antispam and antivirus
and you got more config headaches
> Well, I'm not exactly convinced that anyone should be saying anything
> like "dump sendmail, run postfix or exim" (a poor quote, sorry). Do they
yup... unless it addresses a particular problem/feature that the other
mta does nto support
> have nice config/setup programs?
huh ?? what's that ... :-)
though if one takes a step back.. it should be trivial to make an mta-gui
- you need to know the domain name
- you need to know what the outside world see as your outgoing
email server ( mail.xxx.com )
- you need to know what other domains this mta supports
- you need to know which rbl you want to use if any
- you need to know which antivirus app you want to use if any
click ok to run ...
> I don't like sendmail's very much, it
> requires manually editing sendmail.conf. Not a particularly difficult
> task, but still.. :(
yup.. but in 1 minutes.. you're completely done w/ antispam
c ya
alvin
Reply to: