Paul Slootman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I personally have confidence in Exim's quality in this regard.
>Demon (a large ISP in the UK and the Netherlands, www.demon.net)
>uses Exim as its customer-facing smtp interface, so I guess that they're
>convinced as well.
To be precise, we use Exim for
On Wed 07 Oct 1998, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:00:51 +0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
>
> >I personally have confidence in Exim's quality in this regard.
> >Demon (a large ISP in the UK and the Netherlands, www.demon.net)
> >uses Exim as its customer-facing smtp interface, so I guess tha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Slootman) wrote on 07.10.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue 06 Oct 1998, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, what's the security track record on smail vs exim
> > for the last two years? The standard MTA should have a chance of being
> > secure from remo
On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 08:31:24PM -0700, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> [...] so if there seems to be a concensus this time around, I'll file bugs
> against ftp.debian.org.
Filed. It's bug #27642.
--
Robert Woodcock - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Unix and C are the ultimate computer viruses" -- Richard Gabriel
On Wed, 7 October 1998 12:12:10 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Just curious how you know this since when I telnet to their relay hosts
> they are very non-descript about what they run.
Exim-users.
And a certain news hierachy with some bofhish guys in it.
Did I mention psi.uk.com, btw?
Alexander
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:00:51 +0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
>I personally have confidence in Exim's quality in this regard.
>Demon (a large ISP in the UK and the Netherlands, www.demon.net)
>uses Exim as its customer-facing smtp interface, so I guess that they're
>convinced as well.
Just curious
On Tue 06 Oct 1998, Robert Woodcock wrote:
>
> Just out of curiosity, what's the security track record on smail vs exim
> for the last two years? The standard MTA should have a chance of being
> secure from remote attacks for at least a year after release.
In the words of Philip Hazel (the Exim a
"Steve Lamb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Supposedly it is about ready to be released.
Using a newly written MTA as our default sounds like a poor idea.
Guy
On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 11:39:36PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> in the message IDed as <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robert Woodcock <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote this on Mon, 05 Oct 1998 20:31:24 PDT:
> > Yeah, I know this makes at least the second reincarnation of this thread in
> > the last 6 months,
On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 11:39:36PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> in the message IDed as <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robert Woodcock <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote this on Mon, 05 Oct 1998 20:31:24 PDT:
> > Yeah, I know this makes at least the second reincarnation of this thread in
> > the last 6 months,
in the message IDed as <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robert Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote this on Mon, 05 Oct 1998 20:31:24 PDT:
> Yeah, I know this makes at least the second reincarnation of this thread in
> the last 6 months, but I really think exim should be the standard MTA in
> slink.
(I am not
On Mon, 5 Oct 1998 20:31:24 -0700, Robert Woodcock wrote:
>1. YES, PLEASE
>2. Let's wait for vmailer
>* What's the status of vmailer now?
Supposedly it is about ready to be released. Of course, I don't see what
all the hoopla over vmailer is about in the first place.
--
Steve C.
Yeah, I know this makes at least the second reincarnation of this thread in
the last 6 months, but I really think exim should be the standard MTA in
slink.
Last time this came up, there were two factions:
1. YES, PLEASE
2. Let's wait for vmailer
There wasn't particularly anyone against it from
13 matches
Mail list logo
