Subject: Re: More Sendmail
deem@wdm.com
Date: Mon Mar 24 2003 - 10:10:21 AKST
On 24 Mar 2003 at 9:59, Arthur Corliss wrote:
>
> 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.
We just set up a sendmail server on the East Coast, as well as bind. I am familiar with
the bearish quality but it works well once done correctly, as does qmail.
>
> 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.
There seems to more and more options to sendmail and I like a different MTA, but the
issue to bring to light is not which MTA, but persistance and proper management. If you
run an MTA that may need patching, it's wise to pay attention. You and other folks on
this list could help many by stating the obvious sometimes.
SuSE for instance does a good job of sendmail and postfix setup for MTA's and takes
the pain of it for users. But that tends to leave a false sense of security. Just an
example.
Have Fun,
Dee
---------
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 - 10:10:26 AKST