Kyle_Amon @
jabil .
com wrote:
>
> Did I say MMDF was better? Nope.
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
> Subject: Re: SCO sendmail or mmdf
> Author: Adam Shostack <adam @
homeport .
org> at IE_StPeteB1
> Date: 9/28/96 8:49 PM
>
>
> Kyle_Amon @
jabil .
com wrote:
>
> | MMDF is probably more secure by virtue of being more obscure if
> | nothing else. I'm sure we've all been made aware of far more sendmail
> | holes than MMDF holes but that does not in itself mean that MMDF is
> | more secure. Historically, it probably has been more secure but
> | compared to the latest versions of sendmail... it's anybody's guess.
>
> Nope. Use the source. Theres no need to guess. MMDF is no
> better than sendmail. Also, theres no book to help you understand
> MMDF, and, as I understand it, no active development going on, which
> means that bug fixes will be slower in coming.
>
> Look into qmail.
> http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail.html
>
>
> --
> "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
> -Hume
>
>
smail is an attractive alternative. It is much simpler (therefore
less prone to security holes) and much easier to administer.
Another plus point you have the sources and there are mailing
lists dicussing problems etc. Perhaps worth checking it out.
--
) _) Harry Feltsadas __
/ / mailto:harry @
fdc .
nl __ __(_ )
_ ) _ _/ http://www.fdc.nl/~harry ' | '/ /
__/ __/ __/ < A Red Goose, a Red Duck and a Red Daemon > ___/ ___/
References:
|
|
