FWIW ...
in his 'questions and answers' column in the june '97
issue of Sys Admin, bjorn satdeva 'is still of the
opinion that neither is an adequate sendmail replacement'
while referring to qmail and GNU's Smail.
bjorn goes on to state that qmail is a very new package and
the last time he 'looked at the package' there were a number
of bug fixes to general functionality so he chose 'not to
test it [qmail] until it becomes more stable'.
bjorn futher states that 'while sendmail has a proven track
record of being a security risk, it has the advantage of being
closely monitored by security conscious system administrators
[and presumably hackers :)]'. and while a case can be made for
using one of the less common mail deliver agents, 'but personally,
i would rather rely on this mechanism together with CERT and
eric allman's bug fixes than on a package where it is less likely
that i quickley learn of problems'.
perhaps we should drop bjorn an email or snail mail to suggest
he actually try qmail and see for himself its stablility?
anyway, it got my dander up.
--
-- michael galloway
oak ridge national lab.
|