Subject: Re: More Sendmail
From: Arthur Corliss (arthur@corlissfamily.org)
Date: Mon Mar 24 2003 - 09:59:13 AKST
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, W.D.McKinney wrote:
> Arthur, you are the last person I would expect to have a server that needed any
> patchin. By sending the info to the list it wasn't meant for you personally.
>
> With the article stating that was over 50% of the Internet mail servers, it means
> there are many out there un patched, just due to odds.
I know, Dee, I was just doing some sendmail advocacy, just as you do some
qmail advocacy. It's a bear to get up to speed with, but once you do, it's
well worth it.
Keep in mind that I hate bad code as much as anyone (if not more), but any
sys-admin worth his/her salt knows that it's highly unlikely to expect to
deploy any networked system and not have to patch it. You need to weigh the
pros and cons, and in my case, sendmail is mature and powerful enough to
justify the risk of having to patch it. Plus, with an application as complex
as it is, I think you'd be hard pressed to find *any* software of comparable
complexity that hasn't had similar issues. Let's face it: as SMTP agents go
sendmail is as complex as they come, but that's the cost of the high level of
configurability.
--Arthur Corliss
Bolverk's Lair -- http://arthur.corlissfamily.org/
Digital Mages -- http://www.digitalmages.com/
"Live Free or Die, the Only Way to Live" -- NH State Motto
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a23 : Mon Mar 24 2003 - 09:57:25 AKST