Re: [tlug] Mail Server

[Blomberg David <dblomber@example.com>]

On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 12:21, Matt Doughty wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 11:51:37AM +0900, Blomberg David wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 21:28, Matt Doughty wrote:
> > > 
> > > I would submit that the supposed higher security of QMail, at least in 
> > > relation to postfix, is little more than urban myth.
> > > 
> > > --Matt
> > postfix forwards the local subnet by default QMAIL forwards nothing by
> > default (I Win)
> 
> You must be joking. Defaults doesn't security make.  If you aren't 
> compentent enough to properly configure a service like an MTA then
> your problems are a bit larger then forwarding the local subnet.
> 
> In regards to security of the products (ie security holes, design flaws, bugs) 
> qmail isn't any more secure than postfix.  Both were built from the ground
> up with security in mind, and both have succeeded admirably. So quit being
> a Qmail fanboy eh?
> 
> --Matt
Geez no one can take a joke around here.  I can think of one reason why
QMail would be listed as more secure. (it is only so so valid) QMAIL is
a holy hell to install (due to having to compile and go through the
whole set up makes you learn the mail server) sure any competent person
will learn their mail server Postfix or QMail but too many people just
install Postfix and don't have a clue how it runs, hence it is most
likely insecure. (if you don't know it then you cannot claim it is
secure, because you jsut don't know)  anyway actually I prefer Postfix
but QMail is no sloth either.  (For that matter BSD is technically
better than Linux in my book but due to licensing Linux is king and many
have not even heard of BSD-QMails source only license is making sure
that Postfix will be sendmails replacement)  
-- 
David Blomberg
AIS, APS, ASE, CCNA, LCP, LCA, Linux+, MCP, MCSA, MCSE, RHCE, Server+
Nihon Libertec
dblomber@example.com