Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-31 Thread Chris Rees
2009/10/29 Lars Eighner luvbeas...@larseighner.com: On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Ruben de Groot wrote: sendmail is NOT a legacy application. It's actively being developed ON FreeBSD. Actually, the maintainer(s) are doing a great job Bullshit. Why does sendmail call up the internet during boot?  If

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-30 Thread Jonathan McKeown
On Thursday 29 October 2009 21:58:54 Lars Eighner wrote: On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Ruben de Groot wrote: sendmail is NOT a legacy application. It's actively being developed ON FreeBSD. Actually, the maintainer(s) are doing a great job Bullshit. Why does sendmail call up the internet during

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-30 Thread Ian Smith
In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 282, Issue 14, Message 14 On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:58:54 -0500 (CDT) Lars Eighner luvbeas...@larseighner.com wrote: On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Ruben de Groot wrote: sendmail is NOT a legacy application. It's actively being developed ON FreeBSD. Actually, the

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-30 Thread Randi Harper
MAKE THE PAIN STOP. Seriously, read back in the friggin' mailing list archives. None of y'all are going to say anything that hasn't been said before. Or don't, and just prove how valuable your time isn't by wasting it arguing about something that everyone else is just rolling their eyes at and

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-30 Thread Lars Eighner
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, Ian Smith wrote: Why does sendmail call up the internet during boot? If it needs to know who it is, why can't it look in hosts? See the section: WHO AM I? in /usr/src/contrib/sendmail/cf/README (assuming you haven't deleted the documentation from your system) Or did

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-30 Thread Brett Glass
At 02:50 AM 10/30/2009, Randi Harper wrote: This bikeshed is old and tired. I don't want to paint it. I want to drown it in lighter fluid and set it on fire. I've never seen a bike shed. Unless perhaps it had a furry seat cover. --Brett Glass ___

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-29 Thread Erik Norgaard
pete wright wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Frank Shute fr...@shute.org.uk wrote: FreeBSD: ? I can't think of a good reason why FreeBSD should get rid of it. Saying that, it would be neat if it was taken out of base and replaced with something minimal that could cope with the demands

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-29 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:49:40 +0100, Erik Norgaard norga...@locolomo.org wrote: But, do we actually need an MTA in the base? The only arguments I have seen in this thread are: - because it's been there since the beginning of history - because cron requires it to send the daily reports For

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-29 Thread Erik Norgaard
Giorgos Keramidas wrote: So Sendmail is a pretty heavy-weight program, but it also supports a lot of features. Which was the point, if the only process in base that requires some way to dump output other than send to syslog, is cron, then Sendmail is disproportionate solution for the

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-29 Thread Ruben de Groot
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 06:55:20PM +0100, Erik Norgaard typed: Giorgos Keramidas wrote: I don't argue for a replacement but for the elimination. Install a port if you need an MTA, you're happy with that way for so many other standard services. Isn't this going a little too far? What other

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-29 Thread RW
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:08:24 +0200 Giorgos Keramidas keram...@ceid.upatras.gr wrote: What is nice about Sendmail today is that with minimal changes to a base FreeBSD installation (the rc.conf(5) variable called sendmail_enable and a SMART_HOST value in sendmail.mc) one can quickly get up and

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-29 Thread Lars Eighner
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Ruben de Groot wrote: sendmail is NOT a legacy application. It's actively being developed ON FreeBSD. Actually, the maintainer(s) are doing a great job Bullshit. Why does sendmail call up the internet during boot? If it needs to know who it is, why can't it look in

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-29 Thread Gary Kline
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 06:34:35PM +, RW wrote: On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:08:24 +0200 Giorgos Keramidas keram...@ceid.upatras.gr wrote: What is nice about Sendmail today is that with minimal changes to a base FreeBSD installation (the rc.conf(5) variable called sendmail_enable and a

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-29 Thread Erik Norgaard
Ruben de Groot wrote: On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 06:55:20PM +0100, Erik Norgaard typed: Giorgos Keramidas wrote: I don't argue for a replacement but for the elimination. Install a port if you need an MTA, you're happy with that way for so many other standard services. Isn't this going a little

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-29 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:34:35 +, RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:08:24 +0200 Giorgos Keramidas keram...@ceid.upatras.gr wrote: What is nice about Sendmail today is that with minimal changes to a base FreeBSD installation (the rc.conf(5) variable called

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-29 Thread RW
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:39:49 +0200 Giorgos Keramidas keram...@ceid.upatras.gr wrote: On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:34:35 +, RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:08:24 +0200 Giorgos Keramidas keram...@ceid.upatras.gr wrote: What is nice about Sendmail today is that with

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-29 Thread Rich Kulawiec
Having used sendmail since (quite nearly) the day it was released, and having also spent considerable time with postfix, exim, etc. in a variety of environments both small and quite large, I think I'm in a position to address this. Sendmail remains one of the best choices for an MTA. It's quite

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-28 Thread Scott Bennett
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:03:12 -0200 Gonzalo Nemmi gne...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday 27 October 2009 4:32:45 pm Erik Norgaard wrote: Jonathan McKeown wrote: Just as a matter of interest, if you want to rip sendmail out of the base system, which MTA would you like to replace it with? Or

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-28 Thread Bernt Hansson
Lars Eighner said the following on 2009-10-28 05:46: On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:24:38 -0500 (CDT), Lars Eighner luvbeas...@larseighner.com wrote: Evidently by making it necessary to learn yet another scripting language to configure it. Other than

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-28 Thread Bernt Hansson
Lars Eighner said the following on 2009-10-28 05:46: On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:24:38 -0500 (CDT), Lars Eighner luvbeas...@larseighner.com wrote: Evidently by making it necessary to learn yet another scripting language to configure it. Other than

m4 (was Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?)

2009-10-28 Thread Lowell Gilbert
Lars Eighner luvbeas...@larseighner.com writes: On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:24:38 -0500 (CDT), Lars Eighner luvbeas...@larseighner.com wrote: Evidently by making it necessary to learn yet another scripting language to configure it. Other than

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-28 Thread Michael Powell
Jerry McAllister wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 05:03:12PM -0200, Gonzalo Nemmi wrote: On Tuesday 27 October 2009 4:32:45 pm Erik Norgaard wrote: Jonathan McKeown wrote: Just as a matter of interest, if you want to rip sendmail out of the base system, which MTA would you like to

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-28 Thread Walter Venable
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Bernt Hansson be...@bah.homeip.net wrote: Lars Eighner said the following on 2009-10-28 05:46: On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:24:38 -0500 (CDT), Lars Eighner luvbeas...@larseighner.com wrote: Evidently by making it

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-28 Thread Chad Perrin
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 02:14:17AM +, Frank Shute wrote: I'll speculate as to the reasons: NetBSD: probably wanted something smaller footprint-wise. OpenBSD: wanted something more secure. Those both sound like great reasons. Dragonfly: started afresh, so could replace it without

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-28 Thread Gonzalo Nemmi
On Wednesday 28 October 2009 12:14:17 am Frank Shute wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 08:45:59PM -0200, Gonzalo Nemmi wrote: On Tuesday 27 October 2009 7:31:34 pm Jerry McAllister wrote: [snippage] So, that leaves personal preference as the only real reason for wanting to replace it.

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-28 Thread Frank Shute
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 05:11:54PM -0200, Gonzalo Nemmi wrote: On Wednesday 28 October 2009 12:14:17 am Frank Shute wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 08:45:59PM -0200, Gonzalo Nemmi wrote: On Tuesday 27 October 2009 7:31:34 pm Jerry McAllister wrote: [snippage] So, that leaves

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Jonathan McKeown
On Monday 26 October 2009 21:29:27 Yuri wrote: It's in /usr/sbin/sendmail. How many people actually use it? Very few. Why isn't it moved to ports? What is this anti-sendmail obsession people have? Almost everyone I've ever spoken to about why they dislike sendmail trots out a bunch of

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Lars Eighner
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Jonathan McKeown wrote: On Monday 26 October 2009 21:29:27 Yuri wrote: It's in /usr/sbin/sendmail. How many people actually use it? Very few. Why isn't it moved to ports? What is this anti-sendmail obsession people have? The configuration is opaque, to put it kindly.

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Chris Rees
2009/10/27 Lars Eighner luvbeas...@larseighner.com: On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Jonathan McKeown wrote: On Monday 26 October 2009 21:29:27 Yuri wrote: It's in /usr/sbin/sendmail. How many people actually use it? Very few. Why isn't it moved to ports? What is this anti-sendmail obsession people

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread b. f.
It's in /usr/sbin/sendmail. How many people actually use it? Very few. Why isn't it moved to ports? Obviously, not everyone wants or needs sendmail in the base system. But quite a few people do use it, and many FreeBSD developers are happy with the status quo, so it is unlikely that sendmail

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Gonzalo Nemmi
On Tuesday 27 October 2009 7:32:14 am b. f. wrote: It's in /usr/sbin/sendmail. How many people actually use it? Very few. Why isn't it moved to ports? Obviously, not everyone wants or needs sendmail in the base system. But quite a few people do use it, and many FreeBSD developers are

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Gonzalo Nemmi
On Monday 26 October 2009 11:06:47 pm Olivier Nicole wrote: How many people actually use it? Very few. Out of the 12 or 15 servers I run, only one do not use stock sendmail: the mail server. So one out of twelve is rather quite a lot... Let me get this .. are you saying that out of 12

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Gonzalo Nemmi
On Tuesday 27 October 2009 5:16:30 am Jonathan McKeown wrote: On Monday 26 October 2009 21:29:27 Yuri wrote: It's in /usr/sbin/sendmail. How many people actually use it? Very few. Why isn't it moved to ports? What is this anti-sendmail obsession people have? Hard to tell .. and,

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:43:39 -0200, Gonzalo Nemmi gne...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday 27 October 2009 7:32:14 am b. f. wrote: It's in /usr/sbin/sendmail. How many people actually use it? Very few. Why isn't it moved to ports? Obviously, not everyone wants or needs sendmail in the base system.

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Erik Norgaard
Jonathan McKeown wrote: Just as a matter of interest, if you want to rip sendmail out of the base system, which MTA would you like to replace it with? Or are you suggesting the system ship with no way to handle mail? This thread moving of topic from OP, but it is always fair to debate what

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Gonzalo Nemmi
On Tuesday 27 October 2009 4:00:07 pm Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:43:39 -0200, Gonzalo Nemmi gne...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday 27 October 2009 7:32:14 am b. f. wrote: It's in /usr/sbin/sendmail. How many people actually use it? Very few. Why isn't it moved to ports?

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Kurt Buff
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:32, Bill Moran wmo...@potentialtech.com wrote: In response to Yuri y...@rawbw.com: Besides, if it's not there, how are you going to send mail from things like cron? Postfix. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Kurt Buff
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 00:16, Jonathan McKeown j.mcke...@ru.ac.za wrote: On Monday 26 October 2009 21:29:27 Yuri wrote: It's in /usr/sbin/sendmail. How many people actually use it? Very few. Why isn't it moved to ports? What is this anti-sendmail obsession people have? Almost everyone

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Lowell Gilbert
Green! No, no, Blue! AA -- Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer, Boston area http://be-well.ilk.org/~lowell/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Gonzalo Nemmi
On Tuesday 27 October 2009 4:32:45 pm Erik Norgaard wrote: Jonathan McKeown wrote: Just as a matter of interest, if you want to rip sendmail out of the base system, which MTA would you like to replace it with? Or are you suggesting the system ship with no way to handle mail? This thread

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Gonzalo Nemmi
On Tuesday 27 October 2009 7:16:14 am Chris Rees wrote: 2009/10/27 Lars Eighner luvbeas...@larseighner.com: On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Jonathan McKeown wrote: On Monday 26 October 2009 21:29:27 Yuri wrote: It's in /usr/sbin/sendmail. How many people actually use it? Very few. Why isn't it

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:47:12 -0200, Gonzalo Nemmi gne...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday 27 October 2009 4:00:07 pm Giorgos Keramidas wrote: - Import your MTA of choice in a local branch. - Integrate the $NEWMTA with the base system of FreeBSD. - Update the manpages and documentation for

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Lars Eighner
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Chris Rees wrote: 2009/10/27 Lars Eighner luvbeas...@larseighner.com: On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Jonathan McKeown wrote: On Monday 26 October 2009 21:29:27 Yuri wrote: It's in /usr/sbin/sendmail. How many people actually use it? Very few. Why isn't it moved to ports? What

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Gonzalo Nemmi
On Tuesday 27 October 2009 5:24:58 pm Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:47:12 -0200, Gonzalo Nemmi gne...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday 27 October 2009 4:00:07 pm Giorgos Keramidas wrote: - Import your MTA of choice in a local branch. - Integrate the $NEWMTA with the base

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread ill...@gmail.com
2009/10/27 Gonzalo Nemmi gne...@gmail.com: On Tuesday 27 October 2009 7:32:14 am b. f. wrote: It's in /usr/sbin/sendmail. How many people actually use it? Very few. Why isn't it moved to ports? Obviously, not everyone wants or needs sendmail in the base system. But quite a few people do

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Frank Shute
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 09:24:58PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: [big snip] Until then, the status quo is here because it works, it has been stable for a very long time, and it serves its current purpose well enough. I don't use sendmail but it's easy enough to build a different MTA out

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Gonzalo Nemmi
On Tuesday 27 October 2009 6:18:33 pm ill...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/10/27 Gonzalo Nemmi gne...@gmail.com: On Tuesday 27 October 2009 7:32:14 am b. f. wrote: It's in /usr/sbin/sendmail. How many people actually use it? Very few. Why isn't it moved to ports? Obviously, not everyone

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Chris Rees
2009/10/27 Lars Eighner luvbeas...@larseighner.com: On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Chris Rees wrote: 2009/10/27 Lars Eighner luvbeas...@larseighner.com: On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Jonathan McKeown wrote: On Monday 26 October 2009 21:29:27 Yuri wrote: It's in /usr/sbin/sendmail. How many people actually

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Gonzalo Nemmi
On Tuesday 27 October 2009 6:20:35 pm Frank Shute wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 09:24:58PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: [big snip] Until then, the status quo is here because it works, it has been stable for a very long time, and it serves its current purpose well enough. I don't

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Lowell Gilbert
I probably should move this bikeshed to freebsd-chat... Gonzalo Nemmi gne...@gmail.com writes: On Tuesday 27 October 2009 6:20:35 pm Frank Shute wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 09:24:58PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: I can imagine that a lot of people do use sendmail - it's documented in

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Jerry McAllister
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 05:03:12PM -0200, Gonzalo Nemmi wrote: On Tuesday 27 October 2009 4:32:45 pm Erik Norgaard wrote: Jonathan McKeown wrote: Just as a matter of interest, if you want to rip sendmail out of the base system, which MTA would you like to replace it with? Or are you

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Robert
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:54:44 -0400 Lowell Gilbert freebsd-questions-lo...@be-well.ilk.org wrote: Green! No, no, Blue! AA I think it should be disque shaped. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Gonzalo Nemmi
On Tuesday 27 October 2009 7:22:22 pm Lowell Gilbert wrote: I probably should move this bikeshed to freebsd-chat... Gonzalo Nemmi gne...@gmail.com writes: On Tuesday 27 October 2009 6:20:35 pm Frank Shute wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 09:24:58PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: I can

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Gonzalo Nemmi
On Tuesday 27 October 2009 7:31:34 pm Jerry McAllister wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 05:03:12PM -0200, Gonzalo Nemmi wrote: On Tuesday 27 October 2009 4:32:45 pm Erik Norgaard wrote: Jonathan McKeown wrote: Just as a matter of interest, if you want to rip sendmail out of the base

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Jerry McAllister
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 08:45:59PM -0200, Gonzalo Nemmi wrote: On Tuesday 27 October 2009 7:31:34 pm Jerry McAllister wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 05:03:12PM -0200, Gonzalo Nemmi wrote: On Tuesday 27 October 2009 4:32:45 pm Erik Norgaard wrote: Jonathan McKeown wrote: Just as a

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Kevin Kinsey
Gonzalo Nemmi wrote: On Tuesday 27 October 2009 7:22:22 pm Lowell Gilbert wrote: I probably should move this bikeshed to freebsd-chat... I'd like the bikeshed blue, please. Also, since Sendmail has reached maturity, let's baptize it now instead of during infancy, and add a knob

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Robert
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:00:25 -0400 Jerry McAllister jerr...@msu.edu wrote: Fit the bill ... well.. so did the Geocentric model .. and it actually did work just as fine .. and even better yet since it also mantained the status quo ! ... but then Galileo came and you know the rest of

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Lars Eighner
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Chris Rees wrote: 2009/10/27 Lars Eighner luvbeas...@larseighner.com: On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Chris Rees wrote: 2009/10/27 Lars Eighner luvbeas...@larseighner.com: On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Jonathan McKeown wrote: On Monday 26 October 2009 21:29:27 Yuri wrote: It's in

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread pete wright
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Lars Eighner luvbeas...@larseighner.com wrote: You guessed wrong. We use m4, which cuts out most of the crap that you had to write into sendmail.cf. You write sendmail.mc and compile it. Sendmail.mc on my system is less than 50 lines long, including comments.

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Lars Eighner
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, pete wright wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Lars Eighner luvbeas...@larseighner.com wrote: You guessed wrong. We use m4, which cuts out most of the crap that you had to write into sendmail.cf. You write sendmail.mc and compile it. Sendmail.mc on my system is less

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread pete wright
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Lars Eighner luvbeas...@larseighner.com wrote: On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, pete wright wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Lars Eighner luvbeas...@larseighner.com wrote: You guessed wrong. We use m4, which cuts out most of the crap that you had to write into

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:24:38 -0500 (CDT), Lars Eighner luvbeas...@larseighner.com wrote: Evidently by making it necessary to learn yet another scripting language to configure it. Other than personal profit I cannot see why people are clinging like grim death to something this fubar. Really,

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Frank Shute
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 08:45:59PM -0200, Gonzalo Nemmi wrote: On Tuesday 27 October 2009 7:31:34 pm Jerry McAllister wrote: [snippage] So, that leaves personal preference as the only real reason for wanting to replace it. Let me get this straight .. that means that every Linux

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread pete wright
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Frank Shute fr...@shute.org.uk wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 08:45:59PM -0200, Gonzalo Nemmi wrote: On Tuesday 27 October 2009 7:31:34 pm Jerry McAllister wrote: [snippage] So, that leaves personal preference as the only real reason for wanting to

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread Lars Eighner
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:24:38 -0500 (CDT), Lars Eighner luvbeas...@larseighner.com wrote: Evidently by making it necessary to learn yet another scripting language to configure it. Other than personal profit I cannot see why people are clinging

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-27 Thread b. f.
Lars Eighner wrote: Evidently my package database is corrupt in some way, because it shows m4 as an installed port. I wonder how that happened, how to fix it, and if it will bite if I leave it alone. The GNU version of m4 is a FreeBSD Port, devel/m4. The base system m4(1) was originally based

Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-26 Thread Yuri
It's in /usr/sbin/sendmail. How many people actually use it? Very few. Why isn't it moved to ports? Yuri ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-26 Thread Steve Bertrand
Yuri wrote: It's in /usr/sbin/sendmail. How many people actually use it? Very few. Are you sure about that? AFAIK, all system reports are sent with the sendmail binary. Steve ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-26 Thread Bill Moran
In response to Yuri y...@rawbw.com: It's in /usr/sbin/sendmail. How many people actually use it? Very few. Quite a lot. In fact, anyone who properly installs FreeBSD as a server. Why isn't it moved to ports? Because an MTA has traditionally been part of a POSIX system. Besides, if it's

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-26 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:29:27 -0700, Yuri y...@rawbw.com wrote: It's in /usr/sbin/sendmail. How many people actually use it? Very few. Why isn't it moved to ports? This questions comes up very often. You can find lots of reasons in one of the older threads about Sendmail, e.g. at:

Re: Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

2009-10-26 Thread Olivier Nicole
How many people actually use it? Very few. Out of the 12 or 15 servers I run, only one do not use stock sendmail: the mail server. So one out of twelve is rather quite a lot... Olivier ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list