Secure email

Adrian Ho lexfiend at
Sat Jun 2 03:05:51 PDT 2001

On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Thomas 'Balu' Walter wrote:

> I think that's only true for older sendmails - the newer ones were
> never really buggy (or not that I know of ;).

Sendmail (or anything else for that matter) doesn't have to be "really
buggy" to be broken -- /one/ bug is generally enough.

> I don't like qmail, because I heard Dan Bernstein is a little paranoid
> ;-) -

Not long ago, I didn't like any of DJB's stuff either.  Even went round
telling everyone that I didn't trust his code coz I couldn't understand
it, far too few comments and all that.

Then I actually tried it (and yes, I've used both sendmail and postfix
extensively), and gave his code more than a casual look-through.

Now, I still don't like the man personally, but I don't use anything else
unless there isn't a DJB-alternative, mainly coz of the feeling of comfort
I get from his "small, thoughtful, modular" software architecture.  Miles
apart from the Swiss-Army-chainsaw fever that's so prevalent in Windows,
and apparently infecting a good proportion of the current generation of
Unix software programmers.

Postfix has also needed far more bugfixes than qmail, and definitely for
far sillier bugs, so who would you trust to Get Things Done Right?

> It looks like he does what he wants, not what other find correct.

Which BTW is true for just about any software author (Wietse Venema
included), so what's your point?  8-)

Adrian Ho   lexfiend at

Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-security-request at
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-security mailing list