On Friday 20 September 2002 11:11, Matt Miller wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 17:36, Matthew Moen wrote:
> > This rant isn't directed at you in particular Matt. I'm airing
> > this one as I've heard a lot about sendmail on this list, but have
> > been biting my tongue. Besides, the SLUG list has really been
> > lacking in the rant-traffic department recently. ;-)
>
> Seems like I opened a veritable can of worms. In no way did I feel
> you were ranting at me in particular -- I just piped in because I
The danger of communication eh? Well, I don't think we broke anything
and if we did we can fix it with a bit of willingness, I'm sure.
> believe (rightly or wrongly) sendmail can be run as securely as the
> next app. I am fully aware that there are excellent replacements for
> sendmail which are both as scalable and by design more secure. "Out
> of the box", sendmail seems awfully lofty and IS inherently insecure.
> The only way to secure anybox[tm] against potential hacking is to
> never expose it to the outside world -- and for that matter, don't
> trust your siblings, spouse, dog, etc. to touch the box either.
> Obviously, in order to communicate to the outside world, we are
> forced to essentially take our chances in an inhospitable
> environment. I think it is skewed to believe any program is free from
> hacking or inherent flaws. Sendmail has evolved considerably since
> inception, and its ubiquitous nature has in the past made it the
> poster child for mail server insecurity.
Yep.
-- Steve_____________________________________________________________ HTML in e-mail is not safe. It let's spammers know to spam you more, and sets you up for online attack through IE 4.x and above. Using HTML in e-mail promotes it as safe to the uninitiated.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:55:38 EDT