Re: FWTK and smap/smapd

[Joseph S D Yao <jsdy () center osis gov>]

On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 06:02:49PM -0700, Russell Van Tassell wrote:
> > (5) smap/smapd adds complexity to a mail server. Sendmail+smap/smapd
> >     is about as complex as you can get. Either qmail or Postfix is
> >     far, far simpler than sendmail alone, let alone
> >     sendmail+smap/smapd. Simple is good. It works better.

By the same token, ANY of the MTAs is 'way to complex to TRUST as a
mail proxy.  Smap and smapd are sufficiently simple that I could read
and grok them even after all the added cruft.  Then use MTA of choice
(and your choice may differ from mine) to deliver the mail.

IMHO.  Simplicity is in the mind of the beholder.  I am willing to hold
my breath for a while and believe that Fred can grok sendmail in toto,
and Marcus can grok postfix in toto.  ;-)  I don't.

> Hmmm... sendmail, procmail, smrsh and smapd - along with some sort of
> virus checker?  ;-)

I negelected to mention that the smap/smapd breakdown allows one to
easily slip in virus checker of choice (AMaViS) and SPAM checker of
choice (spamassassin).  Or, perhaps better, put them in line AFTER
'smapd'.

-- 
Joe Yao                         jsdy () center osis gov - Joseph S. D. Yao
OSIS Center Systems Support                                     EMT-B
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards