Subject: Re: Postfix
To: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greywolf <email@example.com>
Date: 08/15/2000 14:35:20
On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Greg A. Woods wrote:
# Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 15:27:23 -0400 (EDT)
# From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
# To: NetBSD-current Discussion List <email@example.com>
# Subject: Re: Postfix
# [[ I'll reply one more time to the list.... ]]
# [ On Tuesday, August 15, 2000 at 01:36:40 (-0700), Pete Naylor wrote: ]
# > Subject: Re: Postfix
# > Now I understand your point - thanks. Not sure that I really agree
# > though, given the number of different components of postfix (as you can
# > tell, I'm not of the opinion that more daemons equates to more security).
# You'd do well to understand the design of postfix a bit better I think.
# Contrary to what you say Postfix's collection of multiple daemons and
# other programs does make it much more secure. Postfix compartmentalises
Greg, you wouldn't happen to have committed code to postfix or been part
of their core dev team, would you?
BSD: true inheritors of the UNIX(tm) legacy.