[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why Sendmail ?
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: Why Sendmail ?
- From: Seth Arnold <sarnold_(_at_)_willamette_(_dot_)_edu>
- Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 15:47:02 -0700
- Mail-followup-to: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
* Jason Rennie <miscbsd_(_at_)_val_(_dot_)_fake_(_dot_)_cx> [001014 15:01]:
> I was just wondering, why does openbsd still come with sendmail installed
> by default ?
I think the easy answer is that Theo/crew has looked over this source
for sendmail countless times, and deems it worthy of maintaining
further, reletively free from programming errors, etc.
> Why not use, for example qmail or postfix ?
D.J. Bernstein (oh, I hope I spelled his name correctly..) has licensed
qmail in such a fashion that special permission must be sought in order
to distribute binaries. I don't know if this permission has ever been
sought by anyone, how hard it would be to get this permission, or if
OpenBSD would even come with software whose license was that strange.
[As an example, I believe `vim' was not chosen as the default vi because
its license asks people to send money to help people of Uganda if they
enjoy using vim.]
As for postfix, I can't say.
> I was wondering becasue secure by default, and sendmail's checkered
> history, seems to be a somewhat contradictory approach.
Sure, historically, sendmail hasn't been kind to the security industry,
but I am sure it has been well-audited by this time. Also, I would
imagine sendmail to be the most well-known MTA --- many people have
fought with sendmail and won, and many more people have the sendmail
book on their bookshelf.
Plus, there is the issue of this being a *BSD. I imagine historically
all the BSDs come with sendmail, so in an attempt to keep this BSD from
looking too different from the historical BSD, sendmail is shipped.
But, most of this is conjecture. :)