1 Hence it must be secure enough. It either needs the security features or must drop the unsecure funtionality. The second option, however, leads to being \emph{no} replacement for other \MTA{}s. It is a valid decision to not be a replacement for \sendmail\ or thelike, but this is a design decision---the change of a primary goal.

2

3 If \masqmail\ should be an \MTA\ to replace others, a switch to a better suited architecture that provides good security and extendability by design, seems required. But if \masqmail\ is wanted to cover some special jobs, not to replace common \MTA{}s, then its architecture depends on the special requirements of the specific job; \MTA\ architectures, like discussed by \person{Hafiz}, may be inadequate.

4

5 What future is to choose for \masqmail---one to be a full featured \MTA, or one to be a stipped down \MTA\ for special jobs?

6

7 The critical point to discuss upon is surely the listening on a port to accepte messages from outside via \NAME{SMTP} (herafter also refered to as the \NAME{SMTP}-in channel). This feature is required for an \MTA\ to be a \name{smart host}, to relay mail. But running as deamon and listening on a port requires much more security effort, because the program is put in direct contact with attackers and other bad guys.

8

9 \MTA{}s without \SMTP-in channels can not receive mail from arbitrary outside hosts. They are only invoked by local users. This lowers the security need a lot---however, security is a general goal and still required, but on a lower level. Unfortunately, as they do not receive mail anymore (except by local submission), they are just better \name{forwarders} that are able to send mail directly to the destination.

10

11 This is not what \masqmail\ was intended to be. Programs that cover this purpose are available; one is \name{msmtp}.

12

13 \masqmail\ shall be a complete \mta. It shall be able to replace ones like \sendmail.

14