Procmail Vulnerabilities check
Chris H
portmaster at BSDforge.com
Sun Dec 10 23:07:57 UTC 2017
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:54:54 -0700 "Adam Weinberger" <adamw at adamw.org> said
> > On 8 Dec, 2017, at 20:11, Chris H <bsd-lists at bsdforge.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 02:59:28 +0100 "Kurt Jaeger" <lists at opsec.eu> said
> >
> >> Hi!
> >> > > > First, there is movement afoot to remove sendmail from FreeBSD and
> >> > > > replace it with dma(1).
> >> > Hmm. This does not come as good news to me. I've been working on an
> >> antispam
> >> > system that targets the use of Sendmail,
> >> If sendmail is available via ports, wouldn't that be enough ?
> > Thanks for the reply, Kurt.
> > Perhaps. Haven't tried it yet (means even more work). :(
> > But hopefully.
> > I thought all my work would have been more valuable, given that Sendmail
> > was installed by default in FreeBSD. Disappointing, but perhaps still
> > doable.
> > Time will tell.
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I’d argue that if your work loses value if sendmail is removed from base
> (suggesting that users wouldn’t choose sendmail when given an option from
>
> ports), then that suggests that sendmail isn’t the right thing to include
>
> in base. Base should ship with the thing that we expect the majority of
> users to WANT to choose.
>
> Clearly there are many users who still prefer sendmail. Your work still has
>
> value!
Thank you, Adam for the thoughtful reply.
I'm not arguing it's intrinsic value with Sendmail. But rather; I was
just indicating that it would be of more value to FreeBSD users, given
that that would *likely* be their MX, as Sendmail is installed so out
of the box. Meaning; Since FreeBSD has (largely) already set it up for
them, they're probably already using it, and that means more Sendmail
users *by default*. :-)
Thanks again, Adam.
--Chris
>
> # Adam
>
More information about the freebsd-ports
mailing list