Procmail Vulnerabilities check

Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask.apl.washington.edu
Sun Dec 10 17:11:25 UTC 2017


On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 01:21:13PM +0000, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> 
> Hence the current sendmail in base is neither fish nor fowl: way
> overpowered for almost all installations, but with significant
> limitations for a machine providing a full-blown mail service.
> Personally I agree with his reasoning: unless the primary function of
> your FreeBSD machine is to be an MTA, you really don't need any more
> capability than to either deliver to a local mailbox, or forward all
> e-mails to a smart host.  Certainly you don't need anything capable of
> receiving incoming e-mails.
> 

I disagree.  FreeBSd used to pride itself on being a complete operating
system oout-of-the-box.  Lately, a smaller number of developers are 
moving FreeBSD to being a kernel with a bunch of add-on software.

dma(1) does not support a .forward file and by extension vacation(1).
Without .forward, then those of use who use procmail(1) (subject of
this email thread) in .forward and by extension spamassisin are 
hosed.

Chapter 27 of the FreeBSD Handbook would need to be rewritten before
sendmail can be removed.  It is assumed that sendmail is installed
with base.

-- 
Steve


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list