Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(January 1997)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: smap, smtpd, qmail, sendmail, etc.
From: Adam Shostack <adam @ homeport . org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 07:32:08 -0500 (EST)
To: kbc22 @ dial . pipex . com (Richard Bignell)
Cc: firewalls @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <l03010d01630b63c6c671 @ [193 . 130 . 252 . 211]> from Richard Bignell at "Jan 25, 97 08:35:45 pm"

Richard Bignell wrote:
| qmail: it seems to me more complicated to configure than sendmail.
| Once you get a code size over 8 .c files I see little difference
| between the reviewability of
| qmail and that of sendmail. At least I'm familiar with sendmail.

	Having participated in a security code review process for a
while, we decided to look at qmail over sendmail for several reasons.
One of the biggest was the size.  Although better commented, it seemed
to us that sendmail was too large to review in a reasonable time
frame.

	Sendmail has 46k lines of code, qmail has 16k, as counted by
wc *.[ch]


Adam

-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume




References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Hunting for a job in Malaysia
From: wong hon wai <hw39434 @ ftsm . ukm . my>
Next: Good "introduction to infosec" URLs
From: "K.M." <goertzek @ wangfed . com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: smap, smtpd, qmail, sendmail, etc.
From: "Robert Black" <r . black @ ic . ac . uk>
Next: smap, smtpd, qmail, sendmail, etc.
From: bve @ quadrix . com (BVE)

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com