Am Di, den 27.07.2004 schrieb Fritz Whittington um 16:51: > At least one point, which is major to me :-) Buried in the sample > configuration file for dovecot is a comment that the refusal to serve > mail for root is compiled into the binary, no matter that it seems to > allow for it in the configuration. I have a small private network of 5 > machines in my office, and I wish to read *all* my email from several > accounts in one Mozilla profile running on a Windows 2000 machine > (mostly because it's by far the fastest of my lot). Even if there > *were* any possible security issues here (which I am convinced there are > not), I don't like this decision taken out of my hands. (I suppose I > could hack the dovecot sources and re-build it.) But it's simpler to > use qmail, which has a configuration option for this. (I am willing to > *briefly* debate the security (non-)issues of this, if anyone cannot see > for themselves; but I refuse to debate any "political" issues about > FOSS, Dan B., or etc/usw.) Right, a debate about DJB's habit would lead to nothing ;) But I can't understand your argument against dovecot. It is a good and custom practice to alias the root account to a normal unprivileged user account. This is done in the aliases file which is respected by the MTA. The IMAP/POP3 daemon has nothing to do with it. Alexander -- Alexander Dalloz | Enger, Germany | GPG key 1024D/ED695653 1999-07-13 Fedora GNU/Linux Core 2 (Tettnang) kernel 2.6.6-1.435.2.3.ad.umlsmp Serendipity 17:01:07 up 1 day, 2:07, load average: 0.99, 1.29, 0.91
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
