[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Mail gui config



On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 16:31, Doncho N. Gunchev wrote:
> On 2004-11-06 (Saturday) 14:08, Iago Rubio wrote:
> > On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 00:19, Doncho N. Gunchev wrote:
[snip]
> > > almost the way I wanted it to. With postfix I can make much more
> > > complicated things in a few hours (and it's not only me)...
> > 
> > Because you know Postfix, and don't know sendmail. With m4 sendmail is
> > not so difficult to configure.
> 
> Read my other mail in the list - m4 goes away in sendmail X project:
> http://www.sendmail.org/~ca/email/sm-X/design-2004-09-29/main/main.html
> http://www.sendmail.org/~ca/email/sm-X/design-2004-09-29/main/node2.html#SECTION00231000000000000000

To change it for a simpler configuration file format.

> > > I want to mention that postfix's security record is much better,
> > 
> > Not true.
> > 
> > Just look to the past two years.
> > 
> > The historical security record of sendmail is poor, but to compare it
> > with the security record of tools that does not even exists when those
> > security holes appeared is not fair.
> > 
> > Of course if I code tomorrow "foomail" will have a better security
> > record than Postfix.
> 
>     True, but here we do compare two projects that are not from yesterday.
> Qmail's has security guarantee http://cr.yp.to/qmail/guarantee.html

But have it's security record also,
http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=qmail

> and
> bad license. For postfix I don't know if such exists, but I don't remember
> security problems too (look at the changelogs of postfix and sendmail).

I prefer to look at other sources to research for security problems,
http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=postfix

Take into account that programmers want to promote their software, and
can say whatever they want to promote it.

They have even their discussions when speaking about security of their
programs http://cr.yp.to/qmail/venema.html

[snip]
> > But well, what I'd like to ask is: What's wrong with current fedora's
> > MTA management ?
> > 
> > You can use Postfix, you can use sendmail, you can switch betwen them
> > ... What's the problem then ?
> > 
> > Are you advocating to delete sendmail ??
> > 
> > Are you proposing any other MTA management scheme better than current
> > fedora's one ?
> 
>     Removing sendmail is not an option for me(read my other mail). The
> only thing I can dream of is to be able to not install fedora without
> sendmail at all, but I don't dream too much :)

You don't need to dream about it. You can do it right now.
 
> > If you'll not do it, this thread is simply a waste of time.

>     Don't get mad at me. 

I don't want to drive you mad. Please remember I'm not a native english
speaker, and what could look to you rough language from my side, is
simply poor language.

> I just think sendmail's configuration is
> quite cryptic and postfix's is much better...

Ok, let's check that point.

For a user - not a system administrator - current sendmail configuration
is safe, and he can send his mail with no need to touch it.

For a sysadmin that wants to open a public mail server to Internet, he
must know what tools to use, and how to configure those tools.
 
If you don't know how to switch from the default sendmail, to your
prefered MTA and configure it, you should not put a mail server facing
the net.

ITOH you mentioned Sendmail X will change it's configuration, that seems
to be the biggest problem here.

It'll change to a simpler one, so may be this problem will be gone
shortly.
 
>  The second part of my
> email was "I want to mention", next time I will not.

I only pointed I did not agree with you, because I think current MTA
management in fedora is really good.

If don't think it's something to drive you out of the list.
-- 
Iago Rubio


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]