Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 20:45:11 +0100 From: Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu> To: Chris H <portmaster@BSDforge.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check Message-ID: <20171211194511.GD2827@home.opsec.eu> In-Reply-To: <00d53b391814cf11575da1e873839ae7@udns.ultimatedns.net> References: <32da0142ef01d545aff61de3a3946d62@udns.ultimatedns.net> <00d53b391814cf11575da1e873839ae7@udns.ultimatedns.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! > Let me attempt to make my point another way (and stay closer to topic). > A user is able to accomplish more from sendmail in base, than with any > other MX port in base alone. [list of sendmail features shortend for brevity] > Many of the other MX software in the ports tree provide a subset of > the shortlist I mentioned above. But none of them offer them all. So if sendmail is a pkg/port, it would still have those features ? Is a pkg install sendmail such a huge step ? And btw, even if sendmail has all those features, I can tell you that even when I first attend my first sendmail workshop, approx. 27 years ago, I still would not know how to implement them with sendmail. > I were an MX administrator. Would I not want all the options/help > I could get to defend myself against attack? I still don't get the difference if sendmail would be a port/pkg. Oh, btw, if sendmail can do all this, wouldn't it be useful to have a suitable config that does all this right out of the box ? Because, honestly, I would not know how to enable all those features... > True. But if I'm selling a Server targeted OS. Don't I want to > advocate server grade services? But the distribution channel of the software for that service (base or port) does not sound as the relevant factor for the end-user, or does it ? -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 3 years to go !
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20171211194511.GD2827>