On 2010-04-19, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday 19 April 2010 16:49:34 Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2010-04-19, Tanstaafl <tansta...@libertytrek.org> wrote:
>> > On 2010-04-18 6:27 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>> >> On Sunday 18 April 2010 22:06:44 Mick wrote:
>> >>> I was reminded that I do not understand sendmail enough for my liking.
>> >>
>> >> Does anybody?
>> >
>> ><flame-protect>
>> >
>> > That's why Wietse invented postfix.
>> >
>> ></flame-protect>
>>
>> I gave up on sendmail about 12 years ago and switched to qmail and/or
>> postfix. I didn't know anybody was still using sendmail. Is it the
>> default MTA for any of the popular Linux distros?
>
> Yes. Centos/RedHat et al. The installer has a screen to let you
> choose, but if you click-click-click-Yes through it like most
> numbnuts will, sendmail is what you get.
And yet the "geekier" distros like Debian and Gentoo gave up on
sendmail years ago. You can install sendmail in either, but people
don't seem to.
> How do I know this? Because I fought valiantly with one of them
> today.
>
> I took me 90 minutes to figure out how to add a SmartHost. Vogon
> poetry is a delight compared to those damn .cf files. And the .mc's
> aren't much better.
There's a reason why the chapter on Mail in the Unix Hater's Handbook
has the quote:
Not having sendmail is like not having VD.
Ron Heiby
Former moderator, comp.newprod
The UHH "Mail" chapter is mostly about sendmail:
Sendmail was built while the Internet mail handling systems were in
flux. As a result, it had to be programmable so that it could
handle any possible changes in the standards. Delve into the
mysteries of sendmail's unreadable sendmail.cf files and
you'll discover ways of rewiring sendmail's insides so that
@#...@$^%<<<@#) at @$%#^! is a valid e-mail address. That was great
in 1985. In 1994, the Internet mail standards have been decided
upon and such flexibility is no longer needed. Nevertheless, all of
sendmail's rope is still there, ready to make a hangman's knot,
should anyone have a sudden urge.
I particularly like the list of reasons why the Sendmail book has a
bat on the cover:
* The common North American brown bat's diet is composed principally
of bugs. Sendmail is a software package which is composed
principally of bugs.
* Sendmail and bats both suck.
* Sendmail maintainers and bats both tend to be nocturnal creatures,
making "eep eep" noises which are incomprehensible to the average
person.
* Have you ever watched a bat fly? Have you ever watched Sendmail
process a queue full of undelivered mail? QED.
* Sendmail and bats both die quickly when kept in captivity.
* Bat guano is a good source of potassium nitrate, a principal
ingredient in things that blow up in your face. Like Sendmail.
* Both bats and sendmail are held in low esteem by the general
public.
* Bats require magical rituals involving crosses and garlic to get
them to do what you want. Sendmail likewise requires mystical
incantations such as:
R<$+>$*$=Y$~A$* $:<$1>$2$3?$4$5 Mark user portion.
R<$+>$*!$+,$*?$+ <$1>$2!$3!$4?$5 is inferior to @
R<$+>$+,$*?$+ <$1>$2:$3?$4 Change src rte to % path
R<$+>:$+ <$1>,$2 Change % to @ for immed. domain
R<$=X$-.UUCP>!?$+ $@<$1$2.UUCP>!$3 Return UUCP
R<$=X$->!?$+ $@<$1$2>!$3 Return unqualified
R<$+>$+?$+ <$1>$2$3 Remove '?'
R<$+.$+>$=Y$+ $@<$1.$2>,$4 Change do u...@domain
* Farmers consider bats their friends because of the insects they
eat. Farmers consider Sendmail their friend because it gets more
collegeeducated people interested in subsistence farming as a
career.
Note that this was written in the early 1990s. Sendmail has been
considered archaic and overly complex for almost 20 years.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! My mind is making
at ashtrays in Dayton ...
gmail.com
