> There are other mailers out there with such design goals.  One is the
> AT&T Bell Labs UPAS mailer (V10 Research UNIX & Plan 9).  I have it on
> good word that if some gentle pressure were applied in the right places,
> and if their bureaucracy works its magic, UPAS could be released as
> "freeware".  Note that it is on the Plan 9 CD too.  Also there is
> Zmailer, which has further advantages for very large gateways.

Is zmailer still maintained?  I poked around with it a few years ago,
but not enough to do it justice.  You just can't install a new MTA on
a production machine just to try it out.

> I *think* smail-3 is more secure -- it doesn't use syslog(3), so would
> have completely avoided the recent bug.  We're hoping to release a new
> beta of smail-3.2 RSN!

I used smail3 on my personal Xenix/286 box and our Xenix/386
uucp/internet gateway.  It worked well.  Although less configurable
than sendmail, it had enough knobs and dials for us to configure it to
our needs.  It seems that since then smail3 has earned an undeserved
bad reputation due to some broken configurations in Linux
distributions.  This is unfortunate.

Should NetBSD switch MTA's?  That's a question that can't be answered
easily.  There has to be a good reason to switch, and the alternatives
have to be "better" enough to justify the pain caused by switching.  

We all know about sendmail's security problems.  Are there more to be
discovered?  Maybe, maybe not.  It's hard to say.  Would any other 
MTA be better at handling the load pain suffered before its memory
upgrade?

I don't think that this is an issue that core can not take on at this
time.  If anyone seriously believes that we need to switch to another
MTA, feel free to do the research and come up with a recommendation/
proposal.  (Note that this is not an invitation for weeks of debate on
the mailing lists)

	--jtc