Re: sendmail 8.14 has a serious memory corruption bug in it

[Bill Hacker <wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Matthias Schmidt wrote:
> * Petr Janda wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:50:22 am Bill Hacker wrote:
> >
> > > Sendmail fits better than most for low/no admin to JFW at getting logs
> > > off-box and fit licensing parameters.
> > >
> > > Those implementing a full-bore MTA for serious use will make 'a'
> > > selection on the criteria dearest to them, and that has naught to do
> > > with what is/is not in base anyway.
> > I don't think that answers the question why does Sendmail, a full blown mail 
> > daemon, with a long history of security issues have to be in the base: if DMA 
> > can satisfy for local mail delivery - required by some maintenance scripts, 
> > and would incidently be easier to maintain due to its small size.
>
> dma can already deliver mails to local and remote destination.  The only
> thing thats missing is .forward support, but I'm working on this.  It
> will be in the tree some time after 1.12 is out.
>
> Give dma a try, send bug reports, comments, fixes, patches :)
>
> > Isnt this the reason DMA was written anyway?
>
> The reason why dma was written is easy.  We want to have a tiny piece of
> software which can deliver mails to local and remote destinations
> out-of-the-box.  No more, no less :)
>
> regards
>
> 	Matthias

Where can one find more info about dma?

My specific interest is relative resistance to abuse / misconfiguration 
with default settings - relative to sendmail et al.

Bill