DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2008-02
DragonFly BSD
DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2008-02
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: sendmail 8.14 has a serious memory corruption bug in it


From: Bill Hacker <wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:06:37 +0000

Matthias Schmidt wrote:
* Petr Janda wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:50:22 am Bill Hacker wrote:

Sendmail fits better than most for low/no admin to JFW at getting logs
off-box and fit licensing parameters.

Those implementing a full-bore MTA for serious use will make 'a'
selection on the criteria dearest to them, and that has naught to do
with what is/is not in base anyway.

I don't think that answers the question why does Sendmail, a full blown mail daemon, with a long history of security issues have to be in the base: if DMA can satisfy for local mail delivery - required by some maintenance scripts, and would incidently be easier to maintain due to its small size.

dma can already deliver mails to local and remote destination. The only thing thats missing is .forward support, but I'm working on this. It will be in the tree some time after 1.12 is out.

Give dma a try, send bug reports, comments, fixes, patches :)

Isnt this the reason DMA was written anyway?

The reason why dma was written is easy. We want to have a tiny piece of software which can deliver mails to local and remote destinations out-of-the-box. No more, no less :)

regards

Matthias

Where can one find more info about dma?


My specific interest is relative resistance to abuse / misconfiguration with default settings - relative to sendmail et al.

Bill



[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]