Hi Paul
Paul Theodoropoulos writes:
> that's an inherent weakness simply of using dynamic addresses to host an
> MTA, you do realize? with a reasonably well crafted timing attack, one
> could present themselves as the IP the mail is to go to, and grab it all.
Ummm, please read my original post. I *know* this. With what qmail
offers, you are vulnerable for as long as your ADSL is down. With
ETRN or some equivalent, you are vulnerable for milliseconds. I would
prefer no window of vulnerability at all, but if there is one I would
prefer if last milliseconds rather than hours.
I expect somebody will now appear to tell me how bad
relay-after-pop is. Sorry, guys, I'm running in a commercial
environment where alla of our users are stupider than G W Bush's
toe-cheese. We have to offer relay-after-pop or lose the 90%
of our customers who are incapable of understanding SMTP AUTH,
> that again is not evidence that qmail usage is growing or declining.
See comments of mine elsewhere.
{my PHD}
> but again, that is not evidence that qmail usage is growing or declining.
My PHB knew DOS and Windows forwards and backwards, including disassembling
the OS for fun. He eventually got shafted by MS stupidity and swore he
would never develop for Windows again. Windows is now a little less
unreliable than it used to be. Qmail is way hehind Exchange. People
still think MS is wonderful. It cosrs a lost to install qmail plus
add-ons yet the toilet cleaner can install Exchange. My PHB keeps
suggesting we switch to Exchange. He knows the OS is crap. He knows
the MTA is crap. But it would give our customers what they think they
want cheaper (short term) than they would get with qmail.
All three directors of the company I work for are saying we should
use Exchange. All three know it is a broken pile of shit. All three
know it is what our customers want... Either qmail does what our
moronic customers want or it won't run here for much longer. :(
> >Ummm, can you offer me proof that hotmail IS using qmail still? Every
> >test I have done indicates it is not, although the qmail mirrors say it
> >is.
>
> i didn't suggest i had proof.
Correct, you did not. But I suggested that I DID have proof (which
you could have rewquested and then disputed).
Ummm, provide your proof, please. Shit or get off the pot... And
you know from our other discussions that I respect you..
[hotmail seems no longer to use qmail
> and you may very well be right - but it is not proof of your claim.
Nothing I have tried reveals anything I interpret as being qmail,
or a very hacked version thereof. You provide me with some intrinsic
response by hotmail that is identical to qmail and I might consider
your point of view. I am well aware of how easy it is to customize
some responses without even recompiling. I am well aware of how easy
it is to sustomize the other responses if you do recompile. I looked
deeper than the obvious responses.
I'm damned sure Gates would tell lies when it suited him. But this time
I do not have the proof to convict him.
>
> > > you've expressed an opinion that you believe qmail is not growing in
> > > usage. that's fine, and is your privilege. it is not a fact, however.
> >
> >And do you have ANY proof that *relative* qmail usage is on the increase?
>
> i haven't made a claim either that it's increasing or decreasing. you've
> made a claim that it is decreasing, but you've offered no evidence to back
> up the claim. that's all i'm pointing out.
>
> >It is quite probable that qmail usage is increasing, but not as fast as
> >other MTAs.
>
> or it may be the other way around. with out proof, who knows?
>
> >You have attempted (and failoed) to invalidate the evidence
>
> you've offered *NO* evidence.
>
> >I have avaliabe to me but not provided any of your own to back up your
> >position. I can be convinced - give me verifiable evidence and logical
> >reasoning and I will happily admit I was wrong.
>
> you've offered speculation, not evidence. none. this is the empirical
> method at work. provide evidence to back up your claims. *i've not claimed
> a position*. *you have*. but you've offered no evidence. only speculation.
>
> again, speculation is fine. so long as it is presented as same. claiming
> that you have proof or evidence without providing any is not helpful.
>
>
> Paul Theodoropoulos
> http://www.anastrophe.com
>
>
>
--
Paul Allen
Softflare Support
