Comments on: Review: Linux Server Security http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/02/22/review-linux-server-security/ News, opinion, and fresh thinking for web developers and designers. The official podcast of sitepoint.com. Tue, 02 Dec 2008 08:03:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: z0s0 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/02/22/review-linux-server-security/#comment-5075 z0s0 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 698164115#comment-5075 <p>Ahhh qmail. It was my favorite for a long, long time, but I don't think my next server build will use qmail. </p> <p>I'm sick of all the patches that are required to Berstein's codebase to achieve what can readily be considered standard MTA features. </p> <p>e.g. qmailqueue to allow things such as Spamassassin and antivirus software to be plugged in.</p> <p>And that it needs to be patched to compile against libc-2.3, while Bernstein refuses to acknowledge this as a bug.</p> <p>Rant over ;-)</p> Ahhh qmail. It was my favorite for a long, long time, but I don’t think my next server build will use qmail.

I’m sick of all the patches that are required to Berstein’s codebase to achieve what can readily be considered standard MTA features.

e.g. qmailqueue to allow things such as Spamassassin and antivirus software to be plugged in.

And that it needs to be patched to compile against libc-2.3, while Bernstein refuses to acknowledge this as a bug.

Rant over ;-)

]]> By: Oisin Feeley http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/02/22/review-linux-server-security/#comment-5076 Oisin Feeley Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 698164115#comment-5076 <p>QUOTE: QMail is growing in popularity and at the very least ranks alongside Postfix</p> <p>RESPONSE: While the above is true the problem of Qmail's license and development model leading to a plethora of unofficial patches makes it hard to maintain. Add to this that Postfix's security model which insulates individual daemons in a chroot'ed environment and it's hard to see qmail as a viable contender. </p> <p>Maybe if the license changes and the qmail-community is able to create an official mainline version that doesn't rely on the bottleneck of a single developer (no matter how excellent that developer) then it'll thrive. And if we're talking about missing MTAs then what about Exim?</p> QUOTE: QMail is growing in popularity and at the very least ranks alongside Postfix

RESPONSE: While the above is true the problem of Qmail’s license and development model leading to a plethora of unofficial patches makes it hard to maintain. Add to this that Postfix’s security model which insulates individual daemons in a chroot’ed environment and it’s hard to see qmail as a viable contender.

Maybe if the license changes and the qmail-community is able to create an official mainline version that doesn’t rely on the bottleneck of a single developer (no matter how excellent that developer) then it’ll thrive. And if we’re talking about missing MTAs then what about Exim?

]]> By: Paul Gregg http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/02/22/review-linux-server-security/#comment-5077 Paul Gregg Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 698164115#comment-5077 <p>I concur with Oisin.</p> <p>http://www.pgregg.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=24<br /> </p> I concur with Oisin.

http://www.pgregg.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=24

]]>