Subject: Re: spamd (was Re: CVS commit: src/etc)
To: Jim Wise <>
From: Steven M. Bellovin <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 04/11/2005 11:11:49
In message <>, Jim Wise writes
>Hash: SHA1
>On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>>> I have a real problem with it -- it should not be $PATH-dependent 
>>> whether typing `spamd' starts the daemon which could be necessary to 
>>> mail delivery or some other barely-spam-related daemon.
>>well, does your PATH include /usr/libexec?
>>is it a common usage?
>Look, I know you're interested in winning the argument at this point, 
>but are you _really_ arguing that it's _good_ practice to have two 
>different binaries with the same name but completely different functions 
>on the system?
>I mean that doesn't even pass the laugh test -- just look at all the 
>confusion the difference between banner(1) and banner(6) have caused 
>over the years, and those aren't even programs people use almost any of 
>the time...

What Jim said.  This is a seriously bad idea; it violates the rule of 
least surprise.  That's bad enough in normal situations; here, we're 
talking about security.  You do *not* want to confuse people about 
security features; they're hard enough to get right as is.

		--Prof. Steven M. Bellovin,