Sendmail insecurity is an ancient and out-of-date myth (thus explaining the fact that is still the most prevalent SMTP server on the 'net). It is very secure as long as you are willing to take the time to learn it. Unfortunately, as I'm sure some of you are well aware, the "Bat Book" is about as thick as the Old Testament making the learning curve a little steep 8-(
As an aside, I have been curious for a long time as to why SME/E-Smith chose to use Redhat but did not choose to use Redhat's file system layout, thus making add-ons and upgrades dificult for non-UNIX/non-Redhat afficionados. I perfectly well understand the chroot DNS and other chroot packages, but add-ons for Apache and a few others are always a major agravation for the non-RPM builder. Or swapping qmail for sendmail, for example. Please don't misunderstand me here, I am just curious as to whether there was a technical reason for this decision, or whether it was pure marketing (particularly since I have always found the qmail system a little confusing, and grew up on sendmail) Regards, John C. Brandon Friedman wrote: > > > Charlie Brady wrote: > >> In that case, then (unmodified) SC is incompatible with SME, just as >> linuxconf, webmin, swat etc are. > > > > Looks that way... > What I might look todo is keep my mail on SME and use SC for groupware? > My main reason is because Sendmail is insecure > ' > > > -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives by mail and http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
