On Thu 29 November 2001 19:45, you (Trond Eivind Glomsr_d) wrote:
postfix instead of sendmail
proftpd instead of wu-ftpd
proftpd isn't any better than wu-ftpd securitywise - vsftpd is, but
Why? What are the problems with proftpd?
doesn't have all the features yet (virtual hosting missed
Jason Costomiris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 01:10:10PM -0500, Brian Ashe wrote:
: Yes, but if you've read it [the postfix license], you
: would see that it is much more Debian friendly then RH,
: etc. friendly. The OSI rarely concerns itself with what
: legal
Hi Kevin,
On Thursday, November 29, 2001, 1:10:12 AM, you babbled something about:
KM That aside, I am wondering why the major distributions stick with
KM software like wu-ftpd, which have such poor security records, when
KM better alternatives exist, e.g.:
Licenses, commonality, familiarity,
Dare's no way I'm going to wait for other po dunk distros ta fix their
ag. -eric wood
It's too bad redhat released the patch early, as it is going to be a pita
for the
other distributions.
___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 03:48:32AM -0500, Brian Ashe wrote:
: KM postfix instead of sendmail
:
: Sendmail is the most common mail server available. There is no lack of
: documentation. It has also been doing better than in the past. Postfix
: also just had a significant DoS against it as well
I just came across the latest remote root exploit for wu-ftp, which I
dutifully installed on the small server I maintain. It's too bad
redhat released the patch early, but accidents happen and there's
nothing to be done about it now.
That aside, I am wondering why the major distributions stick
Hi Jason,
On Thursday, November 29, 2001, 9:52:59 AM, you babbled something about:
JC On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 03:48:32AM -0500, Brian Ashe wrote:
: KM postfix instead of sendmail
JC :
JC : Sendmail is the most common mail server available. There is no lack of
JC : documentation. It has also
Kevin MacNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just came across the latest remote root exploit for wu-ftp, which I
dutifully installed on the small server I maintain. It's too bad
redhat released the patch early, but accidents happen and there's
nothing to be done about it now.
That aside, I
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 03:48:32AM -0500, Brian Ashe wrote:
KM postfix instead of sendmail
Postfix also is not GPL. It is under the IBM Public License. If you
read it, you could see that there are certain provisions for
commercial distribution. While they wouldn't stop you from
My apologies for this message showing up twice. I originally posted
this last night and a weird bounce message showed up in my inbox
complaining about a mailbox being full, so I posted it again this
morning before seeing that the original had made it after all.
So please ignore this thread.
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 01:10:10PM -0500, Brian Ashe wrote:
: I am quite aware of that. But, it proves that it is not the ultimate in
: programming as so many claim. I think it is excellent software, but if there
: are flaws in one place, should I assume that there can be no others?
And sendmail
On 29 Nov 2001, Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote:
Kevin MacNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just came across the latest remote root exploit for wu-ftp, which I
dutifully installed on the small server I maintain. It's too bad
redhat released the patch early, but accidents happen and there's
I just came across the latest remote root exploit for wu-ftp, which I
dutifully installed on the small server I maintain. It's too bad
redhat released the patch early, as it is going to be a pita for the
other distributions. But accidents happen, and there's nothing to be
done about it now.
13 matches
Mail list logo
