On Thu, September 6, 2007 7:16 pm, Steve Holdoway wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:19:12 +1200
> Jim Cheetham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 06/09/07, Steve Holdoway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > The last problem with sendmail reported for 8.13.8, over a year ago so
>> I think your comments c
On 06/09/07, Steve Holdoway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:48:25 +1200 Jim Cheetham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > local filesystem 2GB size limit? :-)
> No, that's the really weird bit!
Errm, then perhaps the kernel doesn't have large file support ... or
the app was compiled
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:48:25 +1200
Jim Cheetham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Never tried it. I've got one server that generates a 2GB mail which it
> > fails to send whenever some cronjob fails.
>
> local filesystem 2GB size limit? :-)
>
> -jim
No, that's the really weird bit!
On 06/09/07, Steve Holdoway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Blimey! I must have been using m4 for over 15 years... how old's sendmail now?
First shipped under that name in 1983 according to Wikipedia. I was
hacking it in 1990. M4 predates sendmail significantly, but I think it
was only deployed in se
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:19:12 +1200
Jim Cheetham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/09/07, Steve Holdoway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The last problem with sendmail reported for 8.13.8, over a year ago so I
> > think your comments could be considered overly critical, given the volumes
> > of e
On 06/09/07, Steve Holdoway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The last problem with sendmail reported for 8.13.8, over a year ago so I
> think your comments could be considered overly critical, given the volumes of
> email it processes, it's one of the biggest ( some say the biggest -
> http://www.or
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:49:15 +1200
Matthew Gregan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One hasn't heard a lot about sendmail for the past few years, but I hear
> > all the time about php. Was it "month of php bugs" lately?
>
> You haven't been listening very closely. Look at the CVE list for
> sendmai
At 2007-09-05T22:42:17+1200, Volker Kuhlmann wrote:
> Lousy apps written in php may be common, but my Linux vendor doesn't
> update php on a frequent basis because of security bugs in the
> applications written in php.
Sure, the PHP runtime is has had problems. I said that already. Here's an
amu
On Tue 28 Aug 2007 13:10:09 NZST +1200, Matthew Gregan wrote:
> No, definitely for sendmail. I forgot to trim the PHP bit. PHP has had
> some problems, but mostly it gets a bad rap due to the popular but terrible
> (wrt security) applications built with it.
Lousy apps written in php may be comm
At 2007-08-28T12:39:43+1200, Steve Holdoway wrote:
> Not for sendmail, that's for sure.
No, definitely for sendmail. I forgot to trim the PHP bit. PHP has had
some problems, but mostly it gets a bad rap due to the popular but terrible
(wrt security) applications built with it.
sendmail has a l
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:17:59 +1200
Matthew Gregan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 2007-08-28T10:38:52+1200, Steve Holdoway wrote:
> > B*ll*cks. The only reason that sendmail could be less secure is because
> > the configurer didn't know what they were doing. Same as all the bad press
> > that php
At 2007-08-28T10:38:52+1200, Steve Holdoway wrote:
> B*ll*cks. The only reason that sendmail could be less secure is because
> the configurer didn't know what they were doing. Same as all the bad press
> that php gets. Blame the workman, not the tools.
That, and the terrible track record for secur
Steve Holdoway wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:14:39 +1200
> Roger Searle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> about such service. My answer lies in using my own domain and addresses
>> though I'm not convinced I can get better reliability via this route, at
>> least I would no longer be ti
On Tue, August 28, 2007 11:29 am, Jasper Bryant-Greene wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2007 10:38:52, Steve Holdoway wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:56:06 +1200
>> Jasper Bryant-Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Postfix - in my experience faster and easier to configure, with a
>> better
>> > security
On Aug 28, 2007 10:38:52, Steve Holdoway wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:56:06 +1200
> Jasper Bryant-Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Postfix - in my experience faster and easier to configure, with a better
> > security track record.
> B*ll*cks. The only reason that sendmail could be less s
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:56:06 +1200
Jasper Bryant-Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Postfix - in my experience faster and easier to configure, with a better
> security track record.
B*ll*cks. The only reason that sendmail could be less secure is because the
configurer didn't know what they were
On Aug 28, 2007 09:30:42, Steve Holdoway wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:14:39 +1200
> Roger Searle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > about such service. My answer lies in using my own domain and addresses
> > though I'm not convinced I can get better reliability via this route, at
> > least
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:14:39 +1200
Roger Searle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> about such service. My answer lies in using my own domain and addresses
> though I'm not convinced I can get better reliability via this route, at
> least I would no longer be tied to a particular ISP. It is cost
Robert Fisher wrote:
> On Monday 27 August 2007 11:15 pm, alanw wrote:
>
>
>> But I'd be interested to know how anyone on this list rates TelstraClear's
>> broadband, either paradise.net or clear.net.
>>
>
> Helpdesk response is slow - IMHO
>
I've been with Paradise (TCL) for years - not
Had Clear broadband for 9 months before breaking my 12 month contract
because there phone support sucked ! Xnet is cheaper ,no contract and
has much better support.
On 27/08/07 23:25:12, Stein Magne wrote:
Den 27. aug. 2007 kl. 23.15 skrev alanw:
I've been with clear.net on dial-up for 10
On Monday 27 August 2007 11:15 pm, alanw wrote:
> But I'd be interested to know how anyone on this list rates TelstraClear's
> broadband, either paradise.net or clear.net.
Helpdesk response is slow - IMHO
Den 27. aug. 2007 kl. 23.15 skrev alanw:
I've been with clear.net on dial-up for 10 years and haven't made
the switch to broadband yet. (I'd prefer to support wireless and
detest traffic charges.)
I got a clear account bundled with the computer I bought, and that
was alright with me beca
I've been with clear.net on dial-up for 10 years and haven't made the switch to
broadband yet. (I'd prefer to support wireless and detest traffic charges.)
I got a clear account bundled with the computer I bought, and that was alright
with me because Telecom's phone service sucked. (I switched
23 matches
Mail list logo
