Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail

[Daniel D Jones]

On Saturday 26 March 2005 05:09 pm, A. Khattri wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005, Daniel D Jones wrote:
> > > Edit /etc/ssmtp/ssmtp.conf and /etc/ssmtp/revaliases.
> >
> > Isn't mailx simply a MUA?
>
> Yeah but some scripts need it to send out email.

I wasn't aware of that.  That seems a broken way to do things.

> > Unless I'm missing something, ssmtp is used to send messages off system
> > to another mail server.  I don't want local messages sent off system. 
> > Among other things, doesn't that mean that the mail has to be sent to a
> > full fledged email address?
>
> You can specify that emails are simply forwarded to your mailhub if you
> want.

By mailhub, are you talking about the machine running my mail server?

> > I simply want to be able to send a message to mylogin
> > (where mylogin is any local user login) and have it dropped into the
> > local mail spool.
>
> So you have qmail running on the same box???

No.  qmail is running on another box.  However, what I'm trying to do doesn't 
(or shouldn't) need qmail.  For example, consider a company mainframe running 
*nix with no external connection.  Local users, accessing the mainframe from 
terminals, should be able to send messages to one another.  Messages should 
just be dropped into /var/spool/mail/username (or ~/.maildir, if so 
configured.)  This was the way *nix was originally set up, so it shouldn't be 
difficult to do.  I surely don't need the full power of sendmail or any other 
MTA to handle that, not do I need the messages shipped off this box to 
another box for distribution.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail

[A. Khattri]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005, Daniel D Jones wrote:

> > Edit /etc/ssmtp/ssmtp.conf and /etc/ssmtp/revaliases.
>
> Isn't mailx simply a MUA?

Yeah but some scripts need it to send out email.

> Unless I'm missing something, ssmtp is used to send messages off system to
> another mail server.  I don't want local messages sent off system.  Among
> other things, doesn't that mean that the mail has to be sent to a full
> fledged email address?

You can specify that emails are simply forwarded to your mailhub if you
want.

> I simply want to be able to send a message to mylogin
> (where mylogin is any local user login) and have it dropped into the local
> mail spool.

So you have qmail running on the same box???


-- 

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail

[Daniel D Jones]

On Saturday 26 March 2005 01:42 pm, A. Khattri wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005, Daniel D Jones wrote:
> > What is the minimum configuration necessary to receive local mail?
> >
> > I have a small home network.  I have a server running qmail which handles
> > all my email.  I use Kmail as my email client, connecting to qmail via
> > POP3 and SMTP.  The problem is that I do not receive output from local
> > cron jobs.
>
> All you need is ssmtp and mailx.
>
> Edit /etc/ssmtp/ssmtp.conf and /etc/ssmtp/revaliases.

Isn't mailx simply a MUA?

Unless I'm missing something, ssmtp is used to send messages off system to 
another mail server.  I don't want local messages sent off system.  Among 
other things, doesn't that mean that the mail has to be sent to a full 
fledged email address?  I simply want to be able to send a message to mylogin 
(where mylogin is any local user login) and have it dropped into the local 
mail spool.

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail

[A. Khattri]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005, Daniel D Jones wrote:

> What is the minimum configuration necessary to receive local mail?
>
> I have a small home network.  I have a server running qmail which handles all
> my email.  I use Kmail as my email client, connecting to qmail via POP3 and
> SMTP.  The problem is that I do not receive output from local cron jobs.

All you need is ssmtp and mailx.

Edit /etc/ssmtp/ssmtp.conf and /etc/ssmtp/revaliases.


-- 

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail delivery - ssmtp & maildrop...?

[Stroller]

On Dec 27, 2003, at 10:52 pm, Spider wrote:

begin  quote
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:03:04 +
Stroller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 it's my understanding that postfix
does many of the same things as mailfilter. Is this correct..? Or am I
confusing postfix with procmail..?


as a followup to my other reply :

http://www.firstpr.com.au/web-mail/RH90-Postfix-Courier-Maildrop-IMAP/

Look down below the : "Configure Postfix to use Maildrop"
About halfway down the page
Ah! Looks perfect. Many thanks.

Stroller.

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail delivery - ssmtp & maildrop...?

[Spider]

begin  quote
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:03:04 +
Stroller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> I believe I read your excellent article some time ago, when I setup 
> Courier-IMAP. However at that time I'd already committed to mailfilter
> for filtering of incoming mail; it's my understanding that postfix
> does many of the same things as mailfilter. Is this correct..? Or am I
> confusing postfix with procmail..?
> 


as a followup to my other reply :


http://www.firstpr.com.au/web-mail/RH90-Postfix-Courier-Maildrop-IMAP/

Look down below the : "Configure Postfix to use Maildrop" 
About halfway down the page.

mailbox_command = /usr/local/bin/maildrop <-- you prolly want
/usr/bin/maildrop


# and add this 
local_destination_concurrency_limit=1



well, read that document for more info, it is redhat centric so you can
probably rid yourself of 90% of it as its already done here ;)


//Spider

-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail delivery - ssmtp & maildrop...?

[Spider]

begin  quote
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:03:04 +
Stroller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I believe I read your excellent article some time ago, when I setup 
> Courier-IMAP. However at that time I'd already committed to mailfilter
> for filtering of incoming mail; it's my understanding that postfix
> does many of the same things as mailfilter. Is this correct..? Or am I
> confusing postfix with procmail..?

I think you are confusing postfix with procmail,  but I'd be surprised
if you can't cut out the spamassassin/procmail parts of the guide and
adapt it to mailfilter instead. 

//Spider

-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail delivery - ssmtp & maildrop...?

[Stroller]

On Dec 27, 2003, at 9:51 pm, Spider wrote:

begin  quote
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:38:10 +
Stroller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there a sendmail replacement which does what I require, please..?
with the risk of being selfpromoting, might this setup be what you
require?
http://dev.gentoo.org/~spider/local-mail-0.3.0/local-email.html

it sets up postfix for local delivery, then uses fetchmail to pull 
email
into postfix, which is then sorted by procmail into users directories.
I believe I read your excellent article some time ago, when I setup 
Courier-IMAP. However at that time I'd already committed to mailfilter 
for filtering of incoming mail; it's my understanding that postfix does 
many of the same things as mailfilter. Is this correct..? Or am I 
confusing postfix with procmail..?

Stroller.

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail delivery - ssmtp & maildrop...?

[Spider]

begin  quote
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:38:10 +
Stroller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Is there a sendmail replacement which does what I require, please..?

with the risk of being selfpromoting, might this setup be what you
require? 

http://dev.gentoo.org/~spider/local-mail-0.3.0/local-email.html

it sets up postfix for local delivery, then uses fetchmail to pull email
into postfix, which is then sorted by procmail into users directories.



//Spider


-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail delivery?

[Luke Scharf]

On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 02:21, Martin Horak wrote:
> Even better is IMHO courier. It's based on qmail's idea, but is a
> little bit "normalized".

I've used Courier in the past, and it rocks!

But I thought it was better suited for large installations...  It's been
a long time since I set it up, though, and I can't remember the details
of what made it good for big sites.

-Luke

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail delivery?

[Ric Messier]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Martin Horak wrote:

> Even better is IMHO courier. It's based on qmail's idea, but is a little 
> bit "normalized".
> 

I've had problems with courier in the past but I can't remember off-hand 
what they are. The best one I've seen for ease of use and maintainability 
is postfix. 

Ric


--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail delivery?

[Keith Dart]

On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 23:21, Martin Horak wrote:
> Even better is IMHO courier. It's based on qmail's idea, but is a little 
> bit "normalized".

I just installed courier. I think it is great. It comes with everything!
An IMAP server, POP3, filters (replaces procmail), SSL, and of course
ESMTP MTA. It comes with lots of good mail tools. And yes, a saner
configuration. 




> >-- quoting Luke Scharf --
> >  
> >
> >>Darnit!  Oh well -- back to running Sendmail (and typing sendmail -q0 ;
> >>sendmail -bp)  for me.  :-)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >If you don't want to hack cryptic config files, I suggest you give Postfix 
> >or Qmail a try. Last one is a bit strange, but if you got it, it's 
> >extremly powerful.
> >
> >Greetings, Matthias
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
-- 
-- - 
Keith Dart

  

Public key ID: B08B9D2C Public key: 



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail delivery?

[Martin Horak]

Even better is IMHO courier. It's based on qmail's idea, but is a little 
bit "normalized".

-- quoting Luke Scharf --
 

Darnit!  Oh well -- back to running Sendmail (and typing sendmail -q0 ;
sendmail -bp)  for me.  :-)
   

If you don't want to hack cryptic config files, I suggest you give Postfix 
or Qmail a try. Last one is a bit strange, but if you got it, it's 
extremly powerful.

Greetings, Matthias

 





--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail delivery?

[Matthias F. Brandstetter]

-- quoting Luke Scharf --
> Darnit!  Oh well -- back to running Sendmail (and typing sendmail -q0 ;
> sendmail -bp)  for me.  :-)

If you don't want to hack cryptic config files, I suggest you give Postfix 
or Qmail a try. Last one is a bit strange, but if you got it, it's 
extremly powerful.

Greetings, Matthias

-- 
The doll's trying to kill me, and the toaster's been laughing at me.

-- Homer Simpson
   Treehouse of Horror III


--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail delivery?

[Luke Scharf]

On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 15:52, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> ssmtp does not work this way. It is pretty much a mail gateway. I don't know if it 
> can be 
> done the way you propose without a full mail server. The only way I know to get 
> local mail 
> delivery is with a full mail server such as sendmail or qmail.

Darnit!  Oh well -- back to running Sendmail (and typing sendmail -q0 ;
sendmail -bp)  for me.  :-)

-Luke

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail delivery?

[Andrew Gaffney]

Luke Scharf wrote:
I'm running ssmtp (the default sendmail program, I think) on Gentoo.  It
works great for sending messages (like this one), but it doesn't seem to
do too well for local mail delivery.
The only things that I use local mail delivery for are reading the
results of cronjobs and for things like logwatch.  Ideally, I'd like to
set ~root/.forward to point to my user account and then let evolution
read /var/spool/mail/myusername.
Is this possible with ssmtp?  If not, how do you all solve this problem?
ssmtp does not work this way. It is pretty much a mail gateway. I don't know if it can be 
done the way you propose without a full mail server. The only way I know to get local mail 
delivery is with a full mail server such as sendmail or qmail.

--
Andrew Gaffney
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] local mail delivery

[Greg Donald]

> > What do I need to do to get local mail delivery?
> 
> sauron root # qpkg -f `which mail`
> net-mail/mailx *

I now have mailx installed, thanks.

But now I got different issue.

> echo test | mail -s test root
send-mail: Cannot open gateway:25

> telnet 0 25
Trying 0.0.0.0...
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused

But when I try and start it

> /etc/init.d/sendmail start  
 * WARNING:  "sendmail" has already been started.


-- 
Greg Donald
http://destiney.com/



--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] local mail delivery

[Andrew Gaffney]

Greg Donald wrote:
I seem to have no local mail delivery:


echo test | mail -s test root
-/bin/bash: mail: command not found

So I started poking around and see that I already have ssmtp installed.  It 
seems unconfigured so I make some obvious changes to /etc/ssmtp/ssmtp.conf.  At 
this point I don't know how to start it up, there is no ssmtpd or anything 
obvious in /etc/init.d.

I then decided to install sendmail.  I was forced to unmerge ssmtp first do to 
a blockage, but then emerging sendmail put ssmtp right back in as a 
dependancy?  Weird..  Anyway, I added sendmail to my startup using rc-update 
and then I started it up by hand.  I again try to send a test message but can't.

What do I need to do to get local mail delivery?
As far as ssmtp, so send an email like you attempted to, you use 
'sendmail' or 'ssmtp', but all that ssmtp does is act as a mail proxy 
and forward anything it gets to a known mail server as per its config 
file. It is really only meant for sending mail, not receiving it.

--
Andrew Gaffney
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] local mail delivery

[Mike Williams]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 26 August 2003 23:14, Greg Donald wrote:

> What do I need to do to get local mail delivery?

sauron root # qpkg -f `which mail`
net-mail/mailx *

HTH

- -- 
Mike Williams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/S90iInuLMrk7bIwRAkIBAJsF42i3XpmTU4NwcJTpuiglbmb2MQCglMbq
+aPnYWtFymv+SYnT/Zm69zo=
=y1ze
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail

[Christopher Fisk]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Brian Downey wrote:

>Tell me again how Microsoft is making computing trustworthy?!

You can completely trust them to get it wrong?


Christopher Fisk
--
BOFH Excuse #405:
Sysadmins unavailable because they are in a meeting talking about why 
they are unavailable so much.

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail

[Brian Downey]

>> There are no known exploits the current patched version of Windows XP I
>> use at work, either.
>
> 
> if by current you mean patched today, then yes so far there arent any
> exploits
> 
>
> :)

Too funny!  I was actually thinking about that as I was typing out the
reply to Christopher.  I figured I'd better put "patched" in that sentence
else I'd get flamed! :~)

Tell me again how Microsoft is making computing trustworthy?!

-brian



--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail

[Christopher Fisk]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Brian Downey wrote:

>> That still doesn't change the fact that currently, in version 8.9.12 there
>> are no known security issues with the sendmail distribution.
>
>There are no known exploits the current patched version of Windows XP I
>use at work, either.

Yes there are.  They have been reported to Microsoft and Microsoft chooses 
not to fix/acknowledge them.

I know Ie6 is not Windows XP, but most Windows XP users have IE6 
installed, and microsoft says IE is a required part of the OS, so here you 
go:

http://pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/

But then, this wasn't a post about Windows XP/IE to begin with.


>> I'm not saying sendmail is more secure than QMail, I'm just saying it is
>> currently not less secure either.
>
>It is by inherent design flaws; not merely based on current code
>revisions.  It's "qmail", not "Qmail".  Sorry, pet peeve.

I have a pet Ferret. =)

>I'm sure everyone is very thankful that you properly set up your Sendmail
>server to work securely.  However, the unfortunate fact is that many MTA
>admins publically accessible Sendmail mail servers do not.

Perhaps they shouldn't be admin's then.  Getting a secure setup is a very 
easy thing to do.  Just like I think all the poeple who setup open proxy's 
and those who setup unsecured Wireless networks, I think that they should 
do a little bit of research before getting on the internet.  But then I 
guess I have way too high expectations of people.

>Because: Sendmail is needlessly complex due to years of patching on top of
>patching and rewrites; which in my opinion can lead to configuration
>mistakes.  I think any experience admin agrees that Sendmail tops the list
>for "Worst Configuration File" award.

I find the sendmail.mc file easy to configure and manage.  Setting up 
various features and settings are as easy as an entry into the mc file.  
Before the m4 macro was introduced, yeah, sendmail config was brutal, but 
having the simplicity of m4 along with the power of being able to hack the 
cf directly leads to a very robust system.


BTW:  This is completely getting offtopic.  They are both MTA's, they are 
both configurable to do what you need it to do, and they both get the job 
done.  Use what you are more comfortable with.


Christopher Fisk
--
He may have come up with the recipe, but I came up with the idea of
charging $6.95 for it.
-- Moe Syzlak, Flaming Moe's

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail

[Mike Wojcikiewicz]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 17 July 2003 13:27, Brian Downey wrote:
> > That still doesn't change the fact that currently, in version 8.9.12
> > there are no known security issues with the sendmail distribution.
>
> There are no known exploits the current patched version of Windows XP I
> use at work, either.


if by current you mean patched today, then yes so far there arent any exploits


:)

- --mike
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/FuFHzK7WDkEewTARAiFFAJ9I+/qATiZkC17vtv4yrxgFSgDNjgCdHKaB
NmXObFGAfy/07v4azZVm6Qk=
=pPIr
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail

[Brian Downey]

> That still doesn't change the fact that currently, in version 8.9.12 there
> are no known security issues with the sendmail distribution.

There are no known exploits the current patched version of Windows XP I
use at work, either.

> I'm not saying sendmail is more secure than QMail, I'm just saying it is
> currently not less secure either.

It is by inherent design flaws; not merely based on current code
revisions.  It's "qmail", not "Qmail".  Sorry, pet peeve.

--snip--
>yet it keeps resending ignoring your 55x
> responce.)  If a sendmail flaw is found I will be either patching it
> manually, or just emerge -u sendmail and not thinking again about it.

I'm sure everyone is very thankful that you properly set up your Sendmail
server to work securely.  However, the unfortunate fact is that many MTA
admins publically accessible Sendmail mail servers do not.

Because: Sendmail is needlessly complex due to years of patching on top of
patching and rewrites; which in my opinion can lead to configuration
mistakes.  I think any experience admin agrees that Sendmail tops the list
for "Worst Configuration File" award.

It tries to be everything all at once, which in a proper design--the "true
unix fashion"--smaller, focused programs should contribute to the greater
whole.

But, you are correct; any MTA is susecptable to misconfiguration.  I
simply steer towards qmail because it's much harder /to/ misconfigure, and
in my opinion from an overall design standpoint, it makes much more sense.

-brian



--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail

[Christopher Fisk]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Mikhail P. wrote:

>You probably do not know history of sendmail very well, my friend.

Been using sendmail since '97.  I know the history fine.  It is a history 
filled with open relays, root exploits and DOSing.  Did any of those 
affect me?  No, because I can read instructions and apply patches as 
needed.

That still doesn't change the fact that currently, in version 8.9.12 there 
are no known security issues with the sendmail distribution.

I'm not saying sendmail is more secure than QMail, I'm just saying it is 
currently not less secure either.

And, as was said, this is just a religious flamefest between Qmail and 
sendmail.  In my opinion you should use what works best for you.  Sendmail 
does what I need it to do, and does it securely. Every MTA, be it 
Sendmail, QMail, postfix, etc, should be watched closely for abuse by 
outsiders, by legitimate users and for things that can just go wrong (like 
a misconfigured remote server tyring to send your server a 3MB file that 
you reject based on size yet it keeps resending ignoring your 55x 
responce.)  If a sendmail flaw is found I will be either patching it 
manually, or just emerge -u sendmail and not thinking again about it.


Christopher Fisk
--
BOFH Excuse #407:
Route flapping at the NAP.

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail

[Brian Downey]

I'm sorry, what known security issues are there with Sendmail 8.12.9?
None?
How many known security issues are there with qmail?  None?

Since when is None "much more" than None?

I switched from Sendmail to qmail; and have been using it several years.

Asking anyone on the qmail email list about the security differences 
between the two will result in a flurry of emails telling you the 
following:

*  Sendmail's security record is /much/ worse than qmail's.
*  Running a MTA as root is a "bad thing".
*  Sendmail is outdated.
*  Combining all aspects of an MTA into one monolithic program is a bad 
idea:  Compromise one part, you've got the whole cigar.

There's many arguments for the above, but that's the main ones.

-brian

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail

[Andrew Heberle]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
MIKE MacMartin wrote:
| /etc/init.d/postfix start
| Error: could not get dependency info for postfix
|
| why not?
|
~From the Gentoo Linux rc-script guide
(http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/rc-scripts.xml)

The depscan.sh helper script
For completeness, depscan.sh is mentioned here. It is used to create a
dependency cache that basically is a map of dependencies between services.
It should be run whenever a new rc-script is added to /etc/init.d/, but
since rc-update automatically calls it, most users should not need to
run it.

So either run /etc/init.d/depscan.sh or rc-update add postfix default to
rebuild the init scripts dependencies.
- --
Andrew Heberle
"Bingeley bingeley beep!"
(Feet of Clay)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1-nr1 (Windows XP)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQEVAwUBPxXxfopep9njY14lAQJHmgf5ATMIo2Vbgn5ZLd+ke/W7npsKARDVbvXo
Jy4nWvszayJJVZkGp0IMhq5VhMPHn9u3ZFDO/02zy71Y+/r0+7oofww+nPRx7bXO
XmV9z5bi1C8/5UuzwrI2P+b3mnEvnxcYatRzn+FClVQe3SMuLJnG9zFSPkICTqeT
QMEKFLMlwmFVAyQp0dDrHEmu4gaaDg9VEceBlOIDowiedXfDYuQZ/2pO8X+woUQV
O5E0y48rWxsw8hPFLrt8hRoJ2k03dOjoph1jsAvyW8XxAqDWBRMjRojbrAzWBZI6
g7uakyqhsPYmUoEuRKGRIg9LnvpuSqckXHmfNhuHU7D7j/UyQ6FBkw==
=81o2
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail

[Mikhail P.]

On Wednesday 16 July 2003 14:48, Christopher Fisk wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Mikhail P. wrote:
> >You can try qmail, which is much smaller than sendmail and much more
> >secure.
>
> I'm sorry, what known security issues are there with Sendmail 8.12.9?
> None?
>
> How many known security issues are there with qmail?  None?
>
> Since when is None "much more" than None?
>
>
> Christopher Fisk
> --
> I WILL NOT USE ABBREV.
> I WILL NOT USE ABBREV.
>   Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 2F33

You probably do not know history of sendmail very well, my friend.
Latest version of qmail was released in 1998. Since that date nobody managed 
to find security holes in official qmail distribution (I'm not talking non 
official qmail patches, but plain qmail itself).

Sendmail was written to be MTA with more features, but author did not think 
about security in sendmail. Did you count holes in sendmail since 1998? There 
was/is a lot of them according to bugtraq

So basically once new hole in sendmail will be found, everyone (sendmail 
users) will need to rush and upgrade/patch sendmail before server will be 
root'ed - this can be very painful process if you have to maintain a lot of 
servers. While qmail users will still use qmail and not worry about security 
holes in it, which is a huge plus I think.

Based on those 3 statements I'm saying that  qmail is more secure than 
sendmail.



-- 
To segfault is human; to bluescreen moronic. 

   -- From a Slashdot.org post


--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail

[Christopher Fisk]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Mikhail P. wrote:

>You can try qmail, which is much smaller than sendmail and much more 
>secure.

I'm sorry, what known security issues are there with Sendmail 8.12.9?  
None?

How many known security issues are there with qmail?  None?

Since when is None "much more" than None?


Christopher Fisk
--
I WILL NOT USE ABBREV.
I WILL NOT USE ABBREV.
Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 2F33

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail

[MIKE MacMartin]

On July 15, 2003 05:22 pm, Bryan D. Stine wrote:
> I have the same error starting up through new init scripts started by
> packages, but they start up anyway for me. Are you sure postfix isn't
> running?

It won't let me stop it.  I just checked and it is not started

MIKE
-- 
Beware the JabberOrk

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail

[Bryan D. Stine]

I have the same error starting up through new init scripts started by
packages, but they start up anyway for me. Are you sure postfix isn't
running?

On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 17:24, MIKE MacMartin wrote:
> > Definitely. One popular choice (my own favorite) is postfix. The default
> > configuration requires just a few small edits to one configuration file -
> > very easy to setup and use.
> 
> emerge postfix
> edit /etc/postfix/main.cf
> /etc/init.d/postfix start
> Error: could not get dependency info for postfix
> 
> why not?
> 
> > Nathan Meyers
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> MIKE


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail

[MIKE MacMartin]

> Definitely. One popular choice (my own favorite) is postfix. The default
> configuration requires just a few small edits to one configuration file -
> very easy to setup and use.

emerge postfix
edit /etc/postfix/main.cf
/etc/init.d/postfix start
Error: could not get dependency info for postfix

why not?

> Nathan Meyers
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIKE
-- 
Beware the JabberOrk

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail

[nmeyers]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 09:31:00PM -0400, edj wrote:
> 
> My machine is not sending localmail, i.e., error messages, cron junk, 
> etc, to root -- "Sendmail:  cannot open port 25".No wonder - I do 
> not have sendmail installed.  I'd rather not install it.  I have ssmtp, 
> but my wanderings around Google tell me that it is not for delivery of 
> local mail.  Is there anything smaller, less complicated than sendmail 
> which I can get and use?  Am I making any sense?

Definitely. One popular choice (my own favorite) is postfix. The default
configuration requires just a few small edits to one configuration file -
very easy to setup and use.

Nathan Meyers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Local mail

[Mikhail P.]

On Tuesday 15 July 2003 01:31, edj wrote:
> My machine is not sending localmail, i.e., error messages, cron junk,
> etc, to root -- "Sendmail:  cannot open port 25".No wonder - I do
> not have sendmail installed.  I'd rather not install it.  I have ssmtp,
> but my wanderings around Google tell me that it is not for delivery of
> local mail.  Is there anything smaller, less complicated than sendmail
> which I can get and use?  Am I making any sense?
> Thanks.

You can try qmail, which is much smaller than sendmail and much more secure.

-- 
Q: Why is Microsoft's Product Support a failure?
A: Because Microsoft needs a Support Group instead.


--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list