From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.user/9126 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tim X Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.user Subject: Re: emacs, Gnus, sendmail ? Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 00:35:23 +1000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <87645ya504.fsf@lion.rapttech.com.au> References: <1181187350.287690@vasbyt.isdsl.net> <871wgnano4.fsf@W0053328.mgh.harvard.edu> <873b13m94d.fsf@lion.rapttech.com.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1181313661 31708 80.91.229.12 (8 Jun 2007 14:41:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:41:01 +0000 (UTC) To: info-gnus-english@gnu.org Original-X-From: info-gnus-english-bounces+gegu-info-gnus-english=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 08 16:40:59 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gegu-info-gnus-english@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Hwfe4-00028H-0e for gegu-info-gnus-english@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:40:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hwfe3-0000pJ-Jh for gegu-info-gnus-english@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:40:55 -0400 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!sn-xt-sjc-03!sn-xt-sjc-01!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.gnus User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:1w282P/wl7x+wodWg/cPNcoVDjY= Original-X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Original-Lines: 50 Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.gnus:79311 X-BeenThere: info-gnus-english@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Announcements and discussions for GNUS, the GNU Emacs Usenet newsreader \(in English\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: info-gnus-english-bounces+gegu-info-gnus-english=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: info-gnus-english-bounces+gegu-info-gnus-english=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.user:9126 Archived-At: Dick Hoogendijk writes: > Tim X writes: > >> However, few people run sendmail anymore and unless you need to, >> don't! There are many other MTAs out there. > > I think your story in general is a very good one. I saved it for > future reference ;-) However, don't start a MTA war by saying using > sendmail is 'not done' It's OK to use the MTA you like, but sendmail > is as good as any other. There's nothing wrong with using it. > I know lots of linux distros have abandoned it, but FreeBSD and > solaris -to name a few- still have it as their default MTA. > Actually I didn't mean to imply that sendmail wasn't any good. In fact, its still my favorite MTA - its the one I feel I understand best. However, unless you have pretty demanding requirements, I don't think most people require its power and flexibility - all of which comes at a cost, which is generally additional learning at a level that exceeds what many users require. I've actually had a number of arguments with people who incorrectly believe that sendmail is insecure and/or old/out of date. Often, this is with people who recommend qmail, an MTA which I have had to administer and never felt comfortable with because I never felt I really understood how all the bits worked/integrated. Sendmail was a program, which although potentially complex, has a model I find easy to understand and once you know about m4, is as easy to setup as any other MTA I've had to configure. The security criticisms of sendmail, I bleieve are out of date and misleading. If anything, sendmail is one of the most secure simply because it is so widely used and has been 'tested' so thoroughly. People forget that the security holes found in sendmail occured at a time when security of such protocols was just beginning to become an issue and overlook the fact that the initial system was devleoped back when security was not the issue it is now (the good old days when you could trust the majority of users to do the right thing!). The point is that havinig to address those issues combined with the number of sites using it and its obvious appeal to those wanting to circumvent security means that it probably is more secure than less used systems that really haven't had their security challenged. The main point I wanted to make in my original post was that in many cases, you simply don't need to bother with a local MTA - use your ISPs and let them take care of the admin or use a more light weight MTA, such as exim etc. There is far too much really interesting things out there to get bogged down managing a mail server if you don't need to. tim > -- -- tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au