tobold.org

correct • elegant • free

△ comp.mail.* △

◅ X.400 vs SMTP

SMTP specification ▻

"large security gap in the Internet"

In article <CHvCvt.2rG@tecc.co.uk>, Pete Bentley <pete@tecc.co.uk> wrote:
>                                     One of the nicer features of
>MMDF (and PP) are the way the mail channels are modular, so incoming
>SMTP mail is handled by a small program that simply injects the mail
>into the main queue.

PP channels are modular, but I wouldn't exactly describe the program
as `small'...

USER       PID %CPU %MEM   SZ  RSS TT STAT START   TIME COMMAND
root     15516 11.8  2.3  168 1368 ?  S    14:41   0:00 smtp-in smtp-in
root     15460  0.0  2.3  168 1372 ?  S    14:39   0:00 smtp-in smtp-in
root     15512  0.0  2.4  168 1404 ?  S    14:41   0:00 smtp-in smtp-in
root     15513  0.0  2.3  168 1368 ?  S    14:41   0:00 smtp-in smtp-in

(I believe the bloat is mostly due to ISODE, which each PP program
carries around to enable it to talk to the others.  Fortunately, it's
a shared library.)

Followups to comp.mail.misc.

Tim.
--
Tim Goodwin | "Alvestrand's equality: gateways = pain"
PIPEX Ltd   |     -- Harald T Alvestrand.

Original headers:

From: tim@pipex.net (Tim Goodwin)
Newsgroups: comp.security.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: "large security gap in the Internet"
Followup-To: comp.mail.misc
Date: 14 Dec 1993 14:49:45 -0000
Organization: PIPEX Ltd, Cambridge, UK.
Message-ID: <2ekjq9$9m8@tank.pipex.net>
References: <1521@minya.UUCP> <1993Dec9.154747.14005@aber.ac.uk>
  <1993Dec11.005052.29661@ultb.isc.rit.edu> <CHvCvt.2rG@tecc.co.uk>

△ comp.mail.* △

◅ X.400 vs SMTP

SMTP specification ▻