On 4/23/06, Sean Winn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 10:32:33PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote: > >> Other than that, do we have general consensus that these do what they > >> claim? Any outstanding issues that haven't been addressed? > > > > One request: > > > > Please remove the two seperate rc.conf lines, and replace with just > > one: rc_fancy= YES | NO | COL[O|OU]R > > > > So that it works line the sendmail_enable option (YES/NO/NONE) > > Then include any other tunables in rc_fancy_flags > > Definitely not a good idea to use that as a model: > > man rc.sendmail > > .. > sendmail_enable > (str) If set to ``YES'', run the sendmail(8) daemon at > system > boot time. If set to ``NO'', do not run a sendmail(8) > daemon to > listen for incoming network mail. This does not preclude a > sendmail(8) daemon listening on the SMTP port of the > loopback > interface. The ``NONE'' option is deprecated and should > not be > used. It will be removed in a future release. > .. > > Yes/no options should just be yes/no.
Correct, I concur. This is especially true since the 'configuration check' function is checkyesno and looks for YES or NO values. In fact, I think that sendmail was the only one two use this convention. This was brought in to appease those who use qmail (or other mailservers) with an easy method of turning off sendmail's local 'spool' service, to instead use qmail (or whatever else you like...). I remember the convention not being very pleasant for those involved. -- coleman _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
