Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 05:29:15 +0100 From: "Gary Palmer" <gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG> To: TWC <twc@ns.calyx.com> Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Secure way to do mail Message-ID: <26930.834985755@palmer.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 16 Jun 1996 22:47:20 EDT." <Pine.NEB.3.94.960616224105.10754C-100000@mojo.calyx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
TWC wrote in message ID <Pine.NEB.3.94.960616224105.10754C-100000@mojo.calyx.net>: > Doesn't sendmail need to be setuid at least to bind to the priveleged > port? I'm under the impression that starting it from inetd is a "bad > idea" in that inetd craps out when many connections are opened at one (a > situation that happens commonsly as lists come into our shell machine.) I was meaning that you use SMAP as the mail collection agent to pass through to a non-setuid sendmail, and use procmail for local delivery. There is no way to keep a MTA out of the equation, I'm afraid. > I have procmail installed now as the sendmail local delivery agent. I was > hoping to somehow take advantage of smap's extreme simplicity. I like the > idea of a very simple, reliable, solidly coded program answering on port > 25. See above. But because smap is so simple, it cannot do half the work that sendmail actually does, and you still need to invoke a lot more complicated piece of code than either smap or procmail. If you hate sendmail so much tho, there are alternative MTA's you can use. smail, MMDF and PP all spring to mind, and a friend recently pointed me at qmail as a new MTA. (you'll have to archie for these, sorry) Gary -- Gary Palmer FreeBSD Core Team Member FreeBSD: Turning PC's into workstations. See http://www.FreeBSD.ORG/ for info
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?26930.834985755>