Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 2 Feb 2011 00:07:14 -0430
From:      Andres Perera <andres.p@zoho.com>
To:        Jarrod Slick <jarrod@e-sensibility.com>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: qmail or postfix?
Message-ID:  <AANLkTik2w71CHxuX-7sazd0fNj8JOZmyyHVaBYoF4QUy@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik9SfKtyaaQDmYq%2B3tM8PPzMAH3x56tGiT8LtcY@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <4D48197A.8000108@gmail.com> <AANLkTin5o1zRq-=V_k0r8bgT5ZH4Dc5qfdpZpUZTvFcy@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTik9SfKtyaaQDmYq%2B3tM8PPzMAH3x56tGiT8LtcY@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Jarrod Slick <jarrod@e-sensibility.com> wr=
ote:
> Calling qmail more secure is pretty much just echoing conjecture at this
> point. =C2=A0Sure, it was designed to be secure (years and years ago) and=
 the
> original author even held a contest with a monetary reward for anyone who
> could find a vulnerability -- that said, AFAIK that person no longer
> maintains the project. =C2=A0It requires lots of third party patches to b=
e as
> functional as postfix, so to what extent these patches counteract the
> original coder's (apparent) secure coding practices is open to debate.

that would be besides the point. having the ability to patch up freebsd doe=
sn't
grant me the authority of claiming that my work is the official version, or
atleast doesn't guarantee that i'll have an audience for my claim

> If you know of any specific problems with postfix that would substantiate
> your claim I encourage you to inform the project's maintainers. =C2=A0Fro=
m
> personal experience I can say that I've run a postfix config for years
> without problems. =C2=A0Also, in most networks I don't think the MTA is a=
 very
> prominent attack vector; people are probably much more likely to get in
> through that old wordpress installation you've been meaning to upgrade fo=
r 6
> months (for instance).

you seem to be confused by what i posted

i don't have an explicit example (e.g., buffer overflow) to show that qmail=
 is
more secure. it has to do with the design principles of each and how the sy=
stem
is layed out. while it's true that postfix is partitioned, qmail goes a lit=
tle
further than that by taking a big dump on libc

that's not to say that postfix is inherently insecure



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTik2w71CHxuX-7sazd0fNj8JOZmyyHVaBYoF4QUy>