Todd Zullinger wrote:
I managed to find the sendmail-cf package or whatever it's called
without much issue. I find it laughable that the simple config for
sendmail is done using m4 macros. What the hell is wrong with simple
key/value pairs? So when I say it is obtuse I am not referring to
complete gibberish in the real config file, I'm talking about the
sendmail.mc method.
Much of what we like about unix came from a tradition of re-using
general purpose tools instead of re-inventing them for each new program
and at the time sendmail needed a macro preprocessor, m4 was the general
purpose tool already available. Today it's syntax seems a bit odd but
it still does its job. But my point about it is that everything is
obscure until you've seen an example. If working examples were included
that you could just activate, it wouldn't matter if the contents seemed
obscure or not. Hardly anyone needs to invent a new mail technique these
days - you just need a copy of something that already works.
Anyway, I ditched sendmail long ago and I don't follow its development
at all. It's among the first thing gone from any installs I do.
That's unfortunate, because in combination with MimeDefang it becomes
perhaps the most efficient and versatile way to handle mail.
Sendmail is no different in terms of security holes than named,
sshd, ftpd, or the kernel itself. They've all had security holes
and fixed them. Why single out sendmail in this respect?
It's not being singled out. Network service are disabled by default
to the greatest extent possible. AFAIK, only sshd is enabled by
default, I could be wrong though. I don't know why you feel that
sendmail is getting some sort of mistreatment here.
The other services that ship disabled can be enabled by the RedHat
convention of:
service servicename enable
and made to activate on bootup with
chkconfig servicename on
Do you notice a different treatment compared to having to install
another package and edit an undocumented file?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
