Coming soon: OpenSMTPD
OpenSMTPD is developing most of the features that one would expect from an SMTP daemon. It can speak the SMTP protocol, including the SSL-based versions for added security. Virtual domains are supported, as are forward files and external delivery agents like procmail. There are plans to add a sendmail-like "milter" capability for mail-filtering extensions. In summary, it is growing to the point that it can do most of the basic things that the other MTA implementations do.
Given that those implementations represent a great deal of development and debugging time, and that a new mail daemon will surely bring new bugs and even security problems, one might well wonder why the OpenSMTPD developers are doing it. It appears to come down to a combination of licensing issues and a desire for a simpler and more OpenBSD-like tool.
The OpenBSD Journal article which brought OpenSMTPD to the community's attention includes this quote from Gilles Chehade, who started this project:
It is a rare mail system administrator who has not had a moment like this; the lowest levels of sendmail configuration are a thing which must be seen to be believed. The higher-level "language" implemented with a set of M4 macros has helped to keep an entire generation of administrators sane, but it still presents its challenges. The end result is that, even though sendmail seems to be long past its period where new remote root exploits were a weekly experience, it is still a program with roots in the 1980's that many administrators prefer to avoid.
So what about Postfix? It turns out that Gilles likes Postfix reasonably well, but there is a fundamental problem with it: the IBM Public License under which Postfix is distributed includes copyleft-style source availability requirements. Copyleft is not particularly popular in OpenBSD circles, so that license ensures that Postfix will never be a part of the OpenBSD source tree. For Gilles, that meant that he needed to install Postfix separately after each OpenBSD installation; it also means that Postfix does not receive the same level of attention from OpenBSD's code auditors. So it seems that OpenSMTPD is being developed, at least partially, out of a desire to have an MTA under a permissive license which is less intimidating than sendmail.
Needless to say, the licensing issue is enough to exclude GPL-licensed solutions like exim as well.
Beyond licensing, though, it seems that the OpenSMTPD developers want to have an MTA which has more of an OpenBSD-like feel. The configuration file format will be simplified and have a format very similar to that of the "pf" packet filter. Techniques like privilege separation have been designed into the program almost since the beginning. And, of course, it will be a part of the unified OpenBSD source tree; it has been in the OpenBSD CVS repository since November.
Some people within the OpenBSD community have questioned the need for this kind of project, given the number of mail transfer agents already available. Certainly there are projects which are not worth the effort which goes into them, but, that said, it is usually a mistake to criticize the work of people who have decided to scratch a particular itch. Interesting things can come from such developments. From OpenSMTPD we may get an MTA which sheds a lot of legacy requirements (sendmail still has features that come from a time when one had to worry about routing a message via two DECnet hops, over the NSFnet, then into a CSNet node) and which, presumably, will offer a high degree of security.
Once it's stable, it would not be entirely surprising to see a Linux port
of OpenSMTPD as well. Whether it will take off in the Linux world remains
to be seen. Tools like OpenSSH are nearly universal on Linux systems; OpenCVS is ... less so. But
options are usually good, and the OpenSMTPD developers are busily working
toward the creation of another option for a crucial system component. It
will be interesting to see how it turns out.
Posted May 28, 2009 3:13 UTC (Thu)
by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted May 28, 2009 9:03 UTC (Thu)
by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted May 28, 2009 14:56 UTC (Thu)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 16, 2009 9:55 UTC (Fri)
by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331)
[Link]
Posted May 28, 2009 7:18 UTC (Thu)
by melo@simplicidade.org (subscriber, #4380)
[Link] (6 responses)
It seems to match their requirements pretty well: privilege separation, simple configuration, virtual
Posted May 28, 2009 8:04 UTC (Thu)
by elanthis (guest, #6227)
[Link] (1 responses)
The fact that qmail has some features that are desirable for OpenSMTPD does not at all mean that the specifics of that code are desirable.
Posted May 28, 2009 13:38 UTC (Thu)
by melo@simplicidade.org (subscriber, #4380)
[Link]
The core of qmail is very good. You need to replace the smtpd and write a tool to parse the
If you need LDAP, you could also start with qmail-ldap, which has already a much better smtpd
Posted May 28, 2009 9:53 UTC (Thu)
by copsewood (subscriber, #199)
[Link] (2 responses)
Until Qmail was recently placed into the public domain the license for it placed the onus of patching it onto the site administrator, rather than the software distributor, and many Qmail site administrators understood neither the need nor the process for patching this security fault.
Posted May 28, 2009 12:43 UTC (Thu)
by charlieb (guest, #23340)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 28, 2009 13:35 UTC (Thu)
by melo@simplicidade.org (subscriber, #4380)
[Link]
I think that with qmail security track record, OpenSMTPD-qmail-based would start as a very secure
Personally I use and recommend qpsmtpd as the qmail-smtpd replacement. Happy user.
Posted May 28, 2009 15:30 UTC (Thu)
by iabervon (subscriber, #722)
[Link]
Posted May 28, 2009 7:22 UTC (Thu)
by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 31, 2009 0:43 UTC (Sun)
by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
[Link]
This was superseeded by MeTA1. It is also a set of processes (like the other MTAs offered as alternatives), and comes with a license very similar to the one of sendmail 8, essentially BSD 3-clause.
This is definitely a case of Not Invented Here syndrome.
Posted Oct 16, 2009 9:03 UTC (Fri)
by rjamestaylor (guest, #339)
[Link] (2 responses)
Exim for Debian due to GPL, JAMES for Java, OpenSMTPD for BSD...is a RoR MTA far behind? Say,
Choice is good - I just wish the reasons for taking on a complete re-write were for reasons
Posted Oct 16, 2009 17:25 UTC (Fri)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link]
http://freshbsd.org/?branch=&project=&committer=&...
Huh, looks like development is ongoing. Wonder how mature it feels. I'll have to check it out the next time I need an smtpd.
Has anyone tried using it?
Posted Oct 16, 2009 20:01 UTC (Fri)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Jul 19, 2011 5:08 UTC (Tue)
by brad (guest, #77017)
[Link]
Coming soon: OpenSMTPD
Coming soon: OpenSMTPD
Coming soon: OpenSMTPD
Coming soon: OpenSMTPD
Qmail?
hosts, etc.
Qmail?
Qmail?
helping run sites with 300k accounts.
openSMTPD config file into qmail control/ files.
component.
Qmail?
Qmail?
Qmail?
basis of OpenSMTP and *improve* it.
MTA from day one.
Qmail?
Coming soon: OpenSMTPD
sendmail-X?
Coming soon: OpenSMTPD
NNTP in a single JVM is *beyond* me. But I did have the joy of supporting it in the early stages
(v. 1) for a J2EE project of which I was a part. Painful days of instability, reimplementation of old
vulnerabilities, etc., all because our project team was more comfortable with a Java based
platform than anything else. (Note: at that time the JAMES project was *not* rated for production
use; on a few occasions when I exchanged email with the developers they were astounded how
we were relying on the project at that state -- it's probably very robust now at v3).
Erlang is getting popular... *sigh*
other than license, runtime platform, language, framework or which ever reason was given for
these other projects. Guess this is why I prefer Postfix and qmail -- they were rewritten to
provide security, scalability, ease of configuration -- regardless which implementation on prefers
(I like Postfix, personally).
Coming soon: OpenSMTPD
Coming soon: OpenSMTPD
written in both gawk and GhostScript (in non -dSAFER mode). :)
Coming soon: OpenSMTPD