4 ms·

I suppose that could be done, but email itself is a very complicated thing to deal with with a lot of moving parts. OpenSMTP was supposed to have a much simple

I suppose that could be done, but email itself is a very complicated thing to deal with with a lot of moving parts. OpenSMTP was supposed to have a much simpler scope of operation. Think of the configuration method as using duct tape to permanently set the switches/levers of an f1 race car instead of just getting an automatic Toyota car that is simpler for almost all people to drive. A lot of the security and simplicity is supposed to come from not having so many options/knobs/levers of operation.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
Good points. I'd say in that case I'd try to draw on the code or architecture of qmail that was beneficial while ignoring anything unnecessary. Better than trying to get the hard stuff right twice.
- jethro_tell 11y ago
  I think that qmail's design is based off of being super modular. So much that most people don't actually run the qmail-smtpd because it had some security issues (It's been a while but this was around the time they started work on the OpenSMTPd). I assume 5 years later it's much improved but at the time forking the code of an SMTPd that had security vulnerabilities didn't seem like a worthwile investment and everything else has a OpenBSD prohibitive license. Edit: It was all pretty thoroughly discussed on various mailing lists and whatnot if you're curious
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    Qmail's security advantage came from a number of design decisions detailed here and easy to copy in even clean-slate programs: http://cr.yp.to/qmail/qmailsec-20071101.pdf http://cr.yp.to/qmail/qmailsec-20071101.pdf Far as their decision, that makes sense. I still think they should've leveraged proven design principles or tactics in the other software. I've just seen enough of these situations where I believe what you say about how their evaluation and decision process went. I figured licensing would factor into it, too.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

Good points. I'd say in that case I'd try to draw on the code or architecture of qmail that was beneficial while ignoring anything unnecessary. Better than trying to get the hard stuff right twice.

jethro_tell 11y ago
I think that qmail's design is based off of being super modular. So much that most people don't actually run the qmail-smtpd because it had some security issues (It's been a while but this was around the time they started work on the OpenSMTPd). I assume 5 years later it's much improved but at the time forking the code of an SMTPd that had security vulnerabilities didn't seem like a worthwile investment and everything else has a OpenBSD prohibitive license. Edit: It was all pretty thoroughly discussed on various mailing lists and whatnot if you're curious
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Qmail's security advantage came from a number of design decisions detailed here and easy to copy in even clean-slate programs: http://cr.yp.to/qmail/qmailsec-20071101.pdf http://cr.yp.to/qmail/qmailsec-20071101.pdf Far as their decision, that makes sense. I still think they should've leveraged proven design principles or tactics in the other software. I've just seen enough of these situations where I believe what you say about how their evaluation and decision process went. I figured licensing would factor into it, too.