[quoting cleaned up] on 1/8/03 12:50 AM, Daniel Goepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > on 1/7/03 11:29 PM, Jonathan Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 11:26:53PM -0800, Kurt Bigler wrote: >>> on 1/6/03 10:59 PM, Jonathan Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:29:15PM -0800, Kurt Bigler wrote: >>>> >>>> [...] >>>>> The problem came up when my VPS provider did a system upgrade. This >>>>> process >>>>> left everything I had intact except I lost my sendmail soft link which had >>>>> pointed to the sendmail replacement provided by qmail. The link was >>>>> replaced by the sendmail binary with the result that I suddently had >>>>> sendmail running again beside qmail. >>>> >>>> The correct thing to do is to leave the sendmail binary alone and >>>> tweak /etc/mail/mailer.conf so that the sendmail replacement is >>>> invoked instead of the base-system's sendmail. >>> >>> Yes, I actually corrected mailer.conf when the problem occurred, but I have >>> heard that some software will try to use /usr/sbin/sendmail explicitly >>> ignoring mailer.conf. >> >> /usr/sbin/sendmail is a symbolic link to /usr/sbin/mailwrapper. ie >> invoking /usr/sbin/sendmail will consult /etc/mail/mailer.conf.
> This is exactly my point, we are running our selves in legacy circles to > comply with the original application. And even worse, we are continuing > to conform for how sendmail wants thing, and still calling it sendmail. > So, for example, if you install postfix...It replaces the sendmail > executable also. So, sendmail (mailwrapper version), points to sendmail > (postfix replacement), which finally points to the postfix delivery app. > Seems a bit much... Now that I understand this I have to say I agree with the way things are. Using the name "sendmail" makes one side of the community happy, effortlessly. Providing hooks to allow inserting a substitute for the standard binary makes the other side (or sides) of the community happy, basically effortlessly. Making /usr/sbin/sendmail a symlink I am guessing permits one to customize without using the mailwrapper mechanism, for those who don't like it. I am guessing that using mailwrapper probably results in a performance hit compared to modifying the usr/sbin/sendmail symlink to directly point to the ultimately-desired "sendmail" binary. My confusion resulted from a faulty memory of what happenned, which I correct here: In my case I had been altering the sendmail symlink, and this conflicted with my VPS provider's standard system upgrade procedure, which replaced my altered symlink. By using the mailwrapper mechanism instead of replacing the symlink I perhaps take a performance hit, but I have accepted this to avoid the problem on future upgrades. I suspect the performance hit is minor compared to everything else that goes on in one of these email transactions, but would appreciate confirmation if anyone else has a better sense of this. Thanks, Kurt Bigler To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
