Procmail Vulnerabilities check

[Kevin Oberman]

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Steve Kargl <
sgk at troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:

> 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
>

Strongly agree! Support ofr some basics like .forward is really a
requirement. It is used for too many "normal" mail operations including
private dropmail or procmail setups as well as forwarding to a smartmail
system.
--
Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer
E-mail: rkoberman at gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683