DOCSLIB.ORG

Sendmail Evolution: 8.10 and Beyond

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sendmail Evolution: 8.10 and Beyond THE ADVANCED COMPUTING SYSTEMS ASSOCIATION The following paper was originally published in the Proceedings of the FREENIX Track: 1999 USENIX Annual Technical Conference Monterey, California, USA, June 6–11, 1999 Sendmail Evolution: 8.10 and Beyond Gregory Neil Shapiro and Eric Allman Sendmail, Inc. © 1999 by The USENIX Association All Rights Reserved Rights to individual papers remain with the author or the author's employer. Permission is granted for noncommercial reproduction of the work for educational or research purposes. This copyright notice must be included in the reproduced paper. USENIX acknowledges all trademarks herein. For more information about the USENIX Association: Phone: 1 510 528 8649 FAX: 1 510 548 5738 Email: [email protected] WWW: http://www.usenix.org Sendmail Evolution: 8.10 and Beyond Gregory Neil Shapiro [email protected] Eric Allman [email protected] Sendmail, Inc. 6603 Shellmound Street Emeryville,California 94608 ABSTRACT SendmailTM has been the de facto mail transfer agent implementation since the dawn of the Internet. Today, sendmail development is still drivenbyacontinually changing set of network requirements and user demands. Lately,two new driving forces have also contributed to sendmail development. First, as more open source mail transfer agents, such as Exim and Postfix,become available, a newfriendly competition has developed in which the authors of the various MTAs share their ideas via open source and help to advance open standards as opposed to advancing their own particular implementation. Second, a new“hybrid” company, Sendmail, Inc., has been created to offer commercial versions of the open source software while continuing to fuel open source development. This paper will briefly discuss the evolution of sendmail;the influences which drive sendmail development; and howthe creation of Sendmail, Inc. has contributed to the open source version. The paper will also describe the newfeatures appearing in the next ‘‘functionality release’’ofopen source sendmail.Inparticular,changes in queueing and newprotocol support are discussed. Finally,the authors will speculate on future directions for sendmail. 1. Introduction 2. History The sendmail mail transfer agent (MTA) is used To understand the continuing evolution of on most UNIXTM systems today.Recent changes have sendmail,you must first look at its history.Likemany influenced sendmail development, notably the creation successful open source projects, sendmail started as a of a new“hybrid” companydedicated to supporting “scratch your itch” solution to a problem. both the open source code as well as a commercial version. 2.1. In the Beginning... Section 2 givesabrief history of sendmail. Sendmail started out as delivermail,written by Section 3 describes the forces acting to influence Eric Allman, then a graduate student and staffmember changes in sendmail.Section 4 outlines Sendmail, at the University of California at Berkeley. Delivermail Inc.’s effects on the open source. Section 5 discusses solved the problem of routing mail between three changes appearing in sendmail 8.10.Future directions different networks running on the Berkeleycampus at that sendmail may takeare laid out in section 6. the time: the ARPAnet, UUCP,and BerkNet. The first Finally,asummary and concluding remarks are public version was distributed in 1979 as part of the presented in section 7. Fourth BerkeleySoftware Distribution (4BSD) and later as part of 4.1BSD [Allm85]. Although delivermail solved the immediate added, but in such a way that formats other than DBM problem faced by Berkeley, itwas not generic enough were available. Sendmail 8.1 wasreleased with 4.4 to solvethe problems of other custom networks in BSD in mid-1993. Sendmail 8 quickly became a operation. Since the instructions for talking among the unifying influence, as vendors converted from their networks were part of the C source code, it was not hacked versions to the newer version. Some features easy for sites to reconfigure delivermail for their from vendor versions were also included in the new specific needs. The configuration was also not flexible release, for example, NIS support from Sun enough to handle complexmail environments. Microsystems. These additions are just one of many At the same time the ARPAnet was transitioning examples of the success of open source software: to the newInternet protocol, TCP/IP.Part of the new sendmail 8 wasfertilized with ideas from other open protocol suite included extracting mail transmission out source and vendor versions. of the file transfer protocol (FTP) into its own protocol, Another important change that occurred the Simple Mail Transport Protocol (SMTP) [RFC821]. concurrent with sendmail 8 wasthat versions were The user demand for a customizable program and controlled more carefully.The previous major release the network requirements created by the newmail (sendmail 5)had no fewer than 143 “dot” releases (that protocol led to the creation of sendmail,which first is, 5.1 through 5.143), often more than one in a single shipped in 1983 with 4.1c BSD—one of the initial day.Some of those were intended for public operating systems to support TCP/IP. Sendmail consumption, some were test releases. With version 8, accomplished twoimportant goals. First, it provided a sendmail switched to a policyofclearly labeling test reference implementation of the Network Working releases, producing production releases less often, and Group (later the Internet Engineering Task Force, or clearly identifying newfunctionality releases from bug- IETF) mail standard [Cost97]. Second, the fix releases. This change in release frequencywas configuration was read at run time to allow essential to the wide acceptance of sendmail 8 by the reconfiguration for different networks without community.The downside of this change is that people recompilation. Because of the wide variety of networks who liketobeonthe “bleeding edge” have towait supported, the configuration was designed to be longer,and newfeatures are not tested immediately. friendly toward non-conforming addresses. Instead of We viewthis loss of quick feedback as being an rejecting messages that were not acceptable to the acceptable tradeoff. standard, it tried to repair them; this broad acceptance An unfortunate effect of the success of sendmail of inputs maximized interoperability with other 8 wasthat Allman quickly became overloaded with networks available at the time, such as UUCP. answering questions. This overload was the impetus By late 1986, Allman’sinv olvement with behind the establishment of the Sendmail Consortium, sendmail had tapered off, and several other people aloosely-knit group of volunteers providing free picked up development. The most important version support for sendmail.Gregory Shapiro was invited to .. was IDAsendmail from Lennart Lovstrand of the join that group during the 8.8 cycle, and by 8.8.6 was .. University of Linkoping in Sweden, with later doing a large part of development and most of the maintenance by Neil Rickert of Northern Illinois release engineering, although Allman continued to University and Paul Pomes of the University of Illinois reviewand approve changes. [Cost97]. The most important feature added by IDA In 1997, Allman found that evenwith the help of wasthe concept of external databases in DBM format. an extremely capable volunteer staff, he was unable to Shortly thereafter,Paul Vixie, then at Digital keep up with the support load and continue to move Equipment, created KJS (King James Sendmail),an sendmail forward. After exploring several other attempt to unify the divergent versions, but this version approaches for adding resources for sendmail wasnot widely adopted. Sendmail had effectively development, he finally settled on founding a “hybrid” splintered. business model companytoproduce a commercial version of sendmail while continuing to support and 2.2. Sendmail 8Emerges extend the open source version. By using the “hybrid” In late 1989, Allman returned to U.C. Berkeley, approach, he was able to protect the interests of the and not long thereafter was drawn back into sendmail open source community while creating a viable development. By July of 1991, serious work on what business model. would become sendmail 8 had begun. Manyideas were taken from IDAsendmail and KJS,although most were generalized. For example, external databases were 3. Driving Forces When deciding which features to implement and As can be seen in the preceding section, sendmail howtheyshould be implemented, we try to balance has responded to both changing network requirements backwards compatibility with change. By introducing and user demands. In addition to these demands, new radical changes gradually,wegiv e sendmail sites a open source MTAalternativeshelp in driving sendmail chance to prepare for the changes. Acombination of a forward. huge user population and 20 years of sendmail availability prevents us from doing radical changes 3.1. Network Requirements without advanced warning. For example, the 8.9 documentation included a notice warning users that The network requirements come both from the configuration file names would be changing in 8.10. changing face of the Internet and from newInternet Also in 8.10, the LDAP map class will be changed drafts and RFCs from the IETF.For example, up until from ldapx to ldap,thereby dropping the class version 8.9, sendmail allowed third party,promiscuous name’sconnotation as an experimental map. The old relaying by default. This willingness to relay had been name will continue to work (and print a warning) in an acceptable, evendesirable, default for more than 15 8.10, but will be removedina subsequent release. years. Unfortunately,with the growth of spam on the Some of the other open source mail transfer agents, Internet, this default is no longer acceptable. such as Postfix and qmail,are not yet so constrained. The increasing use of email as a vector of viruses has heightened the need for MTAs to include content 3.3. AlternativestoSendmail checking. An SMTP server running on a firewall must At the same time, these other open source MTAs be prepared to vet the data it is handling. Because of also drive sendmail development.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Letter to the FCC [PDF]
    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Amendment of Part 0, 1, 2, 15 and 18 of the ) ET Docket No. 15­170 Commission’s Rules regarding Authorization ) Of Radio frequency Equipment ) ) Request for the Allowance of Optional ) RM­11673 Electronic Labeling for Wireless Devices ) Summary The rules laid out in ET Docket No. 15­170 should not go into effect as written. They would cause more harm than good and risk a significant overreach of the Commission’s authority. Specifically, the rules would limit the ability to upgrade or replace firmware in commercial, off­the­shelf home or small­business routers. This would damage the compliance, security, reliability and functionality of home and business networks. It would also restrict innovation and research into new networking technologies. We present an alternate proposal that better meets the goals of the FCC, not only ensuring the desired operation of the RF portion of a Wi­Fi router within the mandated parameters, but also assisting in the FCC’s broader goals of increasing consumer choice, fostering competition, protecting infrastructure, and increasing resiliency to communication disruptions. If the Commission does not intend to prohibit the upgrade or replacement of firmware in Wi­Fi ​ ​ devices, the undersigned would welcome a clear statement of that intent. Introduction We recommend the FCC pursue an alternative path to ensuring Radio Frequency (RF) compliance from Wi­Fi equipment. We understand there are significant concerns regarding existing users of the Wi­Fi ​ spectrum, and a desire to avoid uncontrolled change. However, we most strenuously advise against prohibiting changes to firmware of devices containing radio components, and furthermore advise against allowing non­updatable devices into the field.
    [Show full text]
  • Setting up a Dial in PPP Server for Use with NX1500 Series Nexion Data Modems
    Setting up a Dial In PPP Server for use with NX1500 series Nexion Data modems. A Linux server can provide many network services and all of these can be accessed by users via a dial up connection. Such services might include Email, Instant Messaging, BBS File Sharing and Internet access. This document applies to Red Hat Linux 7.3 and details only PPP Dial In setup. It requires Mgetty and PPPd to be installed – PPPd is installed by default. Mgetty. Installation To see if Mgetty is installed, run GnoRPM and click Find. Select Match Label from the list and enter mgetty. Click find. No result means Mgetty is not installed. Close the find window. To install, insert the Red Hat CD, mount it by right clicking the desktop and choosing Disks, CD-ROM. Click the Install button in GnoRPM, find Mgetty in the list and install by following the prompts etc. Unmount the drive the same way it was mounted. Mgetty must be run against each port to be monitored for dial in. To run Mgetty on COM 1, the command would be /sbin/mgetty –D ttyS0 where –D forces data mode (deny fax) and ttyS0 = COM 1. (ttyS1 is equivalent to COM 2). Most commonly the Mgetty command is added to /etc/inittab so it is automatically executed at startup and is also re-executed each time the process is terminated (modem hang up). For a modem on COM 1, add the following line to /etc/inittab: S0:2345:respawn:/sbin/mgetty –D ttyS0 The starting ‘S0’ is an arbitrary reference and can be any unique set of characters.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FUTURE of IDEAS This Work Is Licensed Under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License (US/V3.0)
    less_0375505784_4p_fm_r1.qxd 9/21/01 13:49 Page i THE FUTURE OF IDEAS This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License (US/v3.0). Noncommercial uses are thus permitted without any further permission from the copyright owner. Permissions beyond the scope of this license are administered by Random House. Information on how to request permission may be found at: http://www.randomhouse.com/about/ permissions.html The book maybe downloaded in electronic form (freely) at: http://the-future-of-ideas.com For more permission about Creative Commons licenses, go to: http://creativecommons.org less_0375505784_4p_fm_r1.qxd 9/21/01 13:49 Page iii the future of ideas THE FATE OF THE COMMONS IN A CONNECTED WORLD /// Lawrence Lessig f RANDOM HOUSE New York less_0375505784_4p_fm_r1.qxd 9/21/01 13:49 Page iv Copyright © 2001 Lawrence Lessig All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. Published in the United States by Random House, Inc., New York, and simultaneously in Canada by Random House of Canada Limited, Toronto. Random House and colophon are registered trademarks of Random House, Inc. library of congress cataloging-in-publication data Lessig, Lawrence. The future of ideas : the fate of the commons in a connected world / Lawrence Lessig. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN 0-375-50578-4 1. Intellectual property. 2. Copyright and electronic data processing. 3. Internet—Law and legislation. 4. Information society. I. Title. K1401 .L47 2001 346.04'8'0285—dc21 2001031968 Random House website address: www.atrandom.com Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper 24689753 First Edition Book design by Jo Anne Metsch less_0375505784_4p_fm_r1.qxd 9/21/01 13:49 Page v To Bettina, my teacher of the most important lesson.
    [Show full text]
  • Site Finder and Internet Governance
    345 Site Finder and Internet Governance Jonathan Weinberg* 347 INTRODUCTION 348 PART 1. 354 PART 2. 361 PART 3. 366 PART 4. 375 CONCLUSION Copyright © 2004 by Jonathan Weinberg. * Professor of Law, Wayne State University. I am grateful to Michael Froomkin, Mark Lemley, David Maher, Milton Mueller, and Jessica Litman for their comments, and to Susan Crawford and Bret Fausett for answer- ing questions along the way. None of them, of course, is responsible for anything I say here. This essay reflects developments taking place through 30 November 2003. 347 Site Finder and Internet Governance Jonathan Weinberg INTRODUCTION ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2003, VeriSign, Inc.—the company that operates the data- bases that allow internet users to reach any internet resource ending in “.com” or “.net”—introduced a new service it called Site Finder. Less than three weeks later, after widespread protest from the technical community, at least three law- suits, and a stern demand from ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which has undertaken responsibility for managing the internet domain name space), VeriSign agreed to shut Site Finder down.1 In between those dates the internet community saw a passionate debate over the roles of ICANN, VeriSign, and the internet’s technical aristocracy in managing the domain name space. VeriSign has charged that its opponents’ reactions were the product of “obsolete thinking” that would disable it from “build[ing] a commercial busi- ness.”2 ICANN, for its part, is seeking to enact a procedure under which top-level domain name registry operators such as VeriSign must seek ICANN’s approval before offering new services or taking any “significant actions that...could affect the operational stability, reliability, security or global interoperability of...the Internet.”3 Some see fault on all sides: “It’s hard to say,” writes one commenta- tor, “in this case who is being more anti-competitive, ICANN or VeriSign.”4 In this essay, I will try to unpack the Site Finder story.
    [Show full text]
  • To the Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: We, The
    To the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: We, the undersigned, have played various parts in building a network called the Internet. We wrote and debugged the software; we defined the standards and protocols that talk over that network. Many of us invented parts of it. We're just a little proud of the social and economic benefits that our project, the Internet, has brought with it. We are writing to oppose the Committee's proposed new Internet censorship and copyright bill. If enacted, this legislation will risk fragmenting the Internet's global domain name system (DNS ), create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation, and seriously harm the credibility of the United States in its role as a steward of key Internet infrastructure. In exchange for this, the bill will introduce censorship that will simultaneously be circumvented by deliberate infringers while hampering innocent parties' ability to communicate. All censorship schemes impact speech beyond the category they were intended to restrict, but this bill will be particularly egregious in that regard because it causes entire domains to vanish from the Web, not just infringing pages or files. Worse, an incredible range of useful, law-abiding sites can be blacklisted under this bill. These problems will be enough to ensure that alternative name-lookup infrastructures will come into widespread use, outside the control of US service providers but easily used by American citizens. Errors and divergences will appear between these new services and the current global DNS, and contradictory addresses will confuse browsers and frustrate the people using them.
    [Show full text]
  • IDN-OSS Project
    IDN-OSS Project ICANN 2004 Cape Town – IDN Workshop 1st December 2004 William Tan NeuLevel Consultant IDN and NeuLevel • NeuLevel has recognized the need for application plug-ins to realize the benefit of IDN work by any registry – Web browsers, email clients, IM, etc. • Need for a project to implement plug-ins that is – Open source, external to NeuLevel – Community controlled and developed – Standards compliant, not registry-specific 2 Chartering IDN-OSS • NeuLevel collaboration with James Seng to begin IDN-OSS – Conceived at ICANN Montreal – Discussion between Richard Tindal and James Seng • James Seng wrote business plan, kick-started the project. • Advisory Council: Vint Cerf, Mark Davis, Martin Dürst, John Klensin, and Paul Hoffman • Project is hosted by Internet Systems Consortium 3 IDN Open Source Software Project • Goals – Develop open source, standards-compliant software to enable IDN functionality in applications – Target web browser initially – Internet Explorer – Provides a bridge until IDN functionality is native to applications • Timeline – Summer 2003: Project begins – Fall 2003: ISC begins hosting project – Spring 2004: First IE plug-in released – Summer 2004: Internal code improvements 4 IDN-OSS Products • IDNTool • Performs IDNA ToASCII and ToUnicode operations. • Useful for developers, domain administrators, etc. • Uses JPNIC idnkit library internally • Plug-in for Internet Explorer • Allows users to navigate using IDN URLs – by typing into address bar or clicking on links. • New name: echIDNA • Uses JPNIC idnkit library
    [Show full text]
  • H2418.1 EMC-Computer Generated Solutions E-Mail Management and E-Discovery Solution Overview
    Solution Overview EMC-Computer Generated Solutions E-mail Management and E-discovery Solution The Big Picture • Saves time, money, and space on • Helps reduce help desk calls and e-mail servers because the application lessens IT time spent manually runs on a different server (no code is archiving e-mail loaded on the e-mail server) • Delivers a secure corporate e-mail sys- • Remote calls to e-mail servers allow tem that protects valuable intellectual Unlimited Mailbox to run 24 hours per property, as well as complying with day, seven days a week without any government regulatory standards impact on e-mail server performance regarding e-mail storage and retention • Supports all known e-mail platforms, • Delivers immediate time to value including Microsoft Exchange, Lotus by enabling businesses to conduct Domino, Novell GroupWise, SunOne, legal discovery in-house, minimizing and UNIX Sendmail the need for expensive outside e-discovery fees • Provides complete compatibility with double-byte character support •Lowers the total cost of ownership by reducing operational and adminis- • Reduces disk and tape storage trative costs with self-managing and required to back up mail servers and self-healing content-addressed improves the performance of the storage (CAS) backup and recovery of e-mails • Provides long-term data retention • Reduces e-mail server farm as older capabilities, so content cannot be messages are moved to stable, overwritten or changed and is kept for less-expensive media a definable period of time, ensuring •Reduces licensing fees for operating its authenticity and meeting regulatory and backup systems, maintenance requirements costs, and support communications costs A unique, flexible solution that reduces costs and provides faster, less-expensive, lower-risk e-discovery The number and size of e-mails received at any given company, any given day, is becoming increasingly difficult and costly to manage.
    [Show full text]
  • Exim the Mail Transfer Agent.Pdf
    ,Title.10724 Page 1 Tuesday, October 9, 2001 9:25 AM Exim The Mail Transfer Agent ,Title.10724 Page 2 Tuesday, October 9, 2001 9:25 AM ,Title.10724 Page 3 Tuesday, October 9, 2001 9:25 AM Exim The Mail Transfer Agent Philip Hazel Beijing • Cambridge • Farnham • Köln • Paris • Sebastopol • Taipei • Tokyo ,Copyright.10561 Page 1 Tuesday, October 9, 2001 9:25 AM Exim: The Mail Transfer Agent by Philip Hazel Copyright © 2001 O’Reilly & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Published by O’Reilly & Associates, Inc., 101 Morris Street, Sebastopol, CA 95472. Editor: Andy Oram Production Editor: Mary Brady Cover Designer: Ellie Volckhausen Printing History: June 2001: First Edition. Nutshell Handbook, the Nutshell Handbook logo, and the O’Reilly logo are registered trademarks of O’Reilly & Associates, Inc. Many of the designations used by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their products are claimed as trademarks. Where those designations appear in this book, and O’Reilly & Associates, Inc. was aware of a trademark claim, the designations have been printed in caps or initial caps. The association between the image of an aye-aye and Exim is a trademark of O’Reilly & Associates, Inc. While every precaution has been taken in the preparation of this book, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions, or for damages resulting from the use of the information contained herein. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hazel, Philip Exim: the mail transfer agent/by Philip Hazel p.cm. ISBN 0-596-00098-7 1. Exim (Computer program) 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Groupwise Internet Agent
    GroupWise Internet Agent April 7, 2000 Novell Confidential Manual Rev 99a24 8 February 00 Legal Notices Novell, Inc. makes no representations or warranties with respect to the contents or use of this documentation, and specifically disclaims any express or implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose. Further, Novell, Inc. reserves the right to revise this publication and to make changes to its content, at any time, without obligation to notify any person or entity of such revisions or changes. Further, Novell, Inc. makes no representations or warranties with respect to any software, and specifically disclaims any express or implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose. Further, Novell, Inc. reserves the right to make changes to any and all parts of Novell software, at any time, without any obligation to notify any person or entity of such changes. This product may require export authorization from the U.S. Department of Commerce prior to exporting from the U.S. or Canada. Copyright © 1993-1999 Novell, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, photocopied, stored on a retrieval system, or transmitted without the express written consent of the publisher. U.S. Patent Nos. 4,555,775; 4,580,218; 5,412,772; 5,701,459; 5,717,912; 5,760,772; 5,870,739; 5,873,079; 5,884,304; 5,903,755; 5,913,209; 5,924,096; 5,946,467; D393,457 and U.S. Patents Pending. Novell, Inc. 122 East 1700 South Provo, UT 84606 U.S.A. www.novell.com GroupWise Internet Agent February 2000 104-001304-001 Online Documentation: To access the online documentation for this and other Novell products, and to get updates, see www.novell.com/documentation.
    [Show full text]
  • Install Sendmail Mail Server on Debian GNU / Linux
    Walking in Light with Christ - Faith, Computing, Diary Articles & tips and tricks on GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, Windows, mobile phone articles, religious related texts http://www.pc-freak.net/blog Install Sendmail mail server on Debian GNU / Linux Author : admin Installing sendmail on Debian Linux is something not so common these days. As sendmail has been overshadowed by his competitors Exim and Postfix. By default Debian Linux comes with Exim (light) installed as Exim is tiny and perfectly suitable for dealing with small and mid-sized SMTP needs. The reason why sendmail has been moved out by its competitors over the last 15 years is sendmail configuration is one big hell and besides that sendmail has been well known for its many security remote exploit holes - making it a famous target for crackers. Well anyways in some cases sendmail is necessary to install especially if you have a client which wants to have it set up. In this short article I will show how very basic sendmail installation on Debian host is done. blackstar:~# apt-get install sendmail-bin sensible-mda Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following extra packages will be installed: sendmail-base sendmail-cf sensible-mda Suggested packages: sendmail-doc logcheck resolvconf sasl2-bin The following packages will be REMOVED: exim4 exim4-base exim4-config exim4-daemon-light sa-exim task-mail-server The following NEW packages will be installed: sendmail-base sendmail-bin sendmail-cf 0 upgraded, 3 newly installed, 6 to remove and 26 not upgraded. Need to get 1,626 kB of archives.
    [Show full text]
  • Mailarchiva Enterprise Edition V1.9
    MailArchiva Enterprise Edition Administration Guide Willkommen Bienvenidos Welkom Bienvenue Welcome MailArchiva Enterprise Edition v1.9 INSTALLATION AND AMINISTRATION GUIDE For Windows / Linux MailArchiva Enterprise Edition Administration Guide 1 INDEX 1 INDEX ............................................................................................................. 2 2 IMPORTANT NOTICE ....................................................................................... 4 3 CONTACT INFORMATION ................................................................................. 4 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................. 5 4 OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................... 6 5 HIGH-LEVEL FEATURES ................................................................................... 7 6 ARCHITECTURE ............................................................................................... 9 7 INSTALLATION .............................................................................................. 10 7.1 EXCHANGE SERVER CONFIGURATION .................................................................... 11 7.2 SERVER INSTALLATION (ON WINDOWS ) ................................................................ 14 7.3 SERVER INSTALLATION (ON LINUX ) ..................................................................... 15 7.4 MICROSOFT EXCHANGE ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Internet Is a Semicommons
    GRIMMELMANN_10_04_29_APPROVED_PAGINATED 4/29/2010 11:26 PM THE INTERNET IS A SEMICOMMONS James Grimmelmann* I. INTRODUCTION As my contribution to this Symposium on David Post’s In Search of Jefferson’s Moose1 and Jonathan Zittrain’s The Future of the Internet,2 I’d like to take up a question with which both books are obsessed: what makes the Internet work? Post’s answer is that the Internet is uniquely Jeffersonian; it embodies a civic ideal of bottom-up democracy3 and an intellectual ideal of generous curiosity.4 Zittrain’s answer is that the Internet is uniquely generative; it enables its users to experiment with new uses and then share their innovations with each other.5 Both books tell a story about how the combination of individual freedom and a cooperative ethos have driven the Internet’s astonishing growth. In that spirit, I’d like to suggest a third reason that the Internet works: it gets the property boundaries right. Specifically, I see the Internet as a particularly striking example of what property theorist Henry Smith has named a semicommons.6 It mixes private property in individual computers and network links with a commons in the communications that flow * Associate Professor, New York Law School. My thanks for their comments to Jack Balkin, Shyam Balganesh, Aislinn Black, Anne Chen, Matt Haughey, Amy Kapczynski, David Krinsky, Jonathon Penney, Chris Riley, Henry Smith, Jessamyn West, and Steven Wu. I presented earlier versions of this essay at the Commons Theory Workshop for Young Scholars (Max Planck Institute for the Study of Collective Goods), the 2007 IP Scholars conference, the 2007 Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, and the December 2009 Symposium at Fordham Law School on David Post’s and Jonathan Zittrain’s books.
    [Show full text]