Re: Plausibility of sendmail?
AG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NMH can be configured to send email directly to an SMTP server, but this is not sufficient to meet my needs a) this is a TabletPC, a mobile device, which frequently is not connected. I.e. outgoing mail needs to be queued and sent later when the outgoing SMTP server is accessible. b) I need to route email selectively: my company mail is not supposed to go through my personal, non-company, ISP, and vice versa. In my limited understanding I require more than just connecting to an SMTP server; I need a mail transport agent that can queue outgoing mail for several different outgoing mail servers. In principle ssmtp is a drop-in replacement from sendmail, but it doesn't have full sendmail functionality; it will ignore or bomb on most command-line options. All that ssmtp can do is forward mail to an SMTP server. It can choose which server selectively based on the From address. It doesn't queue; but I use it on a frequently unconnected machine, with a homegrown script to queue mail in such a way that I can ssmtp it later. ssmtp has the benefit of being trivial to configure. Exim is much more powerful, and almost certainly can be used as a complete drop-in sendmail replacement in the way you want. Robert -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Plausibility of sendmail?
Sounds to me like you want to read up on exim http://www.exim.org/ to see what it can do and if it will work for you. Discussion of exim's capabilities compared to sendmail is really off-topic for this list. Agreed. But as I responded to Brian earlier in private email: a bit of googling reveals problem reports describing why EXIM is not 100% compatible with sendmail, at least from the point of view of NMH used in a TMDA spam filtering configuration. Is it compatible enough for me to use? Well, I'll suppose I'll see. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Plausibility of sendmail?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 01:55:44PM -0800, AG wrote: Sounds to me like you want to read up on exim http://www.exim.org/ to see what it can do and if it will work for you. Discussion of exim's capabilities compared to sendmail is really off-topic for this list. Agreed. But as I responded to Brian earlier in private email: a bit of googling reveals problem reports describing why EXIM is not 100% compatible with sendmail, at least from the point of view of NMH used in a TMDA spam filtering configuration. Is it compatible enough for me to use? Well, I'll suppose I'll see. Can we stop discussing this now? Whether it is compatible for you or not is really irrelevant to the cygwin mailing list population. If you or someone else wants to offer to maintain sendmail as a package then they should go through the very simple package submission process. Otherwise, I don't see any reason to continue this discussion. We don't add packages on an as-needed basis. We add them on an as-volunteered basis. -- Please use the resources at cygwin.com rather than sending personal email. Special for spam email harvesters: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and be permanently blocked from mailing lists at sources.redhat.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Plausibility of sendmail?
I didn't want to send this to the whole [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, but when I googled for cygwin sendmail Brian's email asking why in the world anyone would want to run sendmail on cygwin came up first. Here's why I am interested: (0) I am *not* interested in running a production mail server under CYGWIN (1) I want to use CYGWIN to allow me to use NMH to read email on my TabletPC running Windows XP TabletPC edition - and to finally allow me to get off Microsoft Outlook. I want to read email on my TabletPC because, well, I *like* the TabletPC even if it is not UNIX. And Linux does not yet run on the TabletPC and preserve many of the useful TabletPC features. (By the way, I do not want to run NMH on VMware on my TabletPC because I have run VMware, in the past, and find that VMware is much more of a hassle than CYGWIN.) NMH can be configured to send email directly to an SMTP server, but this is not sufficient to meet my needs a) this is a TabletPC, a mobile device, which frequently is not connected. I.e. outgoing mail needs to be queued and sent later when the outgoing SMTP server is accessible. b) I need to route email selectively: my company mail is not supposed to go through my personal, non-company, ISP, and vice versa. In my limited understanding I require more than just connecting to an SMTP server; I need a mail transport agent that can queue outgoing mail for several different outgoing mail servers. Why SendMail? Yes, I know just how horrible sendmail is. I welcome advice on alternatives, such as exim or ssmtp. The main reason I am interested in using SendMail on CYGWIN with NMH is that NMH already has support for talking to SendMail: in /usr/local/nmh/mts.conf, you can just say SendMail, and it is supposed to work. Yes, that leaves the ugly job of doing a sendmail.cf; but my configuration is simple enough that I can crib most of it. Now, I have never used ssmtp or exim. Are they really drop in replacements for sendmail from the commandline / protocol level? (Not from the sendmail.cf file level.) I.e. if I configure NMH by putting the path to exim in the SendMail entry in mts.conf, will it just work? -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Plausibility of sendmail?
But Exim provides a sendmail-compatible interface, and a symlink to /usr/sbin/sendmail. Anything that expects to call sendmail from the command line should work fine with Exim, including all those perl modules. Even if you are doing something obscure that absolutely requires sendmail, then you should still be able to develop and test the other 99% of the app on your laptop with Exim, without any actual sendmail. That is great. I didn't know that. This will help. Also, out of curiosity are the mails archived the same way as well? The notion of requiring a specific MTA boggles my mind. I share the same opinion. Trust me. They also expect me to use their notoriously outdated unmanaged hacked Linux system with outdated Perl 5 and outdated CGI.pm modules with outdated DBI modules. :'( At one college, it was only this quarter they discovered ssh and scp. :-( What's sad is that my Sony Picturebook (12x5 laptop) is more powerful than the server. But hey, I guess it'll put hair on my chest. :-) -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Plausibility of sendmail?
Joaquin wrote: But Exim provides a sendmail-compatible interface, and a symlink to /usr/sbin/sendmail. Anything that expects to call sendmail from the command line should work fine with Exim, including all those perl modules. Even if you are doing something obscure that absolutely requires sendmail, then you should still be able to develop and test the other 99% of the app on your laptop with Exim, without any actual sendmail. That is great. I didn't know that. This will help. Also, out of curiosity are the mails archived the same way as well? Are you referring to local delivery? Exim by default delivers to standard 'mbox' files in /var/spool for local users, just like sendmail. However, it could be configured for other formats like Maildir (with a managed mount), or processed with procmail, forwarded, piped, etc. Basically all the standard unix mail things are supported. Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Plausibility of sendmail?
Joaquin wrote: Lastly, my professor REQUIRED us to use sendmail for our Perl CGI/DBI/mail projects. There was no choice in the matter. The code would be deployed on the college system, which is a Linux system. My development machine is a small tiny VIAO laptop running Windows XP. I would prefer to develop the whole application on my system, at a relaxing coffee shop, and sendmail will allow me to do that. Otherwise, I am forced to use the horribly maintained lab system. But Exim provides a sendmail-compatible interface, and a symlink to /usr/sbin/sendmail. Anything that expects to call sendmail from the command line should work fine with Exim, including all those perl modules. Even if you are doing something obscure that absolutely requires sendmail, then you should still be able to develop and test the other 99% of the app on your laptop with Exim, without any actual sendmail. The notion of requiring a specific MTA boggles my mind. Sure, require a sendmail-compatible MTA, fine, but needing a genuine sendmail? Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Plausibility of sendmail?
Hi All... There were some strong opinions expressed on both sides about whether sendmail is a good thing or not...but the bottom line is that no one has offered to maintain sendmail as a package under Cygwin. If you want to do that, I don't think that anyone would stop you. There is presently a direct replacement available under cygwin. Why is this thread living on? Thanks, ...Karl From: Joaquin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Plausibility of sendmail? Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 21:26:57 -0800 On another angle for this discussion. Consider that for one M$ $FU 3.5 has sendmail. Before this many commercial solutions charging quite a lot of $$ for sendmail under Windows. Microsoft even compiled a version of sendmail for the earliest versions of Windows NT 3.51 long ago and posted it on their ftp server. Other companies made sendmail-look-alike programs that could be scripted. There is demand there, but it is not so obvious. - Joaquin -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ _ Get some great ideas here for your sweetheart on Valentine's Day - and beyond. http://special.msn.com/network/celebrateromance.armx -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Plausibility of sendmail?
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 06:31:02AM -0800, Karl M wrote: There were some strong opinions expressed on both sides about whether sendmail is a good thing or not...but the bottom line is that no one has offered to maintain sendmail as a package under Cygwin. If you want to do that, I don't think that anyone would stop you. There is presently a direct replacement available under cygwin. Why is this thread living on? Because this is the cygwin mailing list. It is the rule that discussion must go on past the point where there is an obvious solution. The solution here, is, of course, for someone to package sendmail and offer it as a cygwin package following the rules which are documented on the cygwin web site. Hmm. I think it is time for me to send my You know you're a cygwin user, if... email. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Plausibility of sendmail?
Hi. Essentially, I would probaly never utilize Cygwin as a production system. Actually, truth be told, I would never personally use Windows as a prodcution system. The thought just scares me. But I don't want to go there... However, I do use Windows as a development system, where I test client-server scripts/programs using a lot of Open Source, some on cygwin, some outside of cygwin. I would want to test a REAL sendmail program for these development scenarios. Lastly, my professor REQUIRED us to use sendmail for our Perl CGI/DBI/mail projects. There was no choice in the matter. The code would be deployed on the college system, which is a Linux system. My development machine is a small tiny VIAO laptop running Windows XP. I would prefer to develop the whole application on my system, at a relaxing coffee shop, and sendmail will allow me to do that. Otherwise, I am forced to use the horribly maintained lab system. - Joaquin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Dessent Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 10:11 PM To: 'Cygwin List' Subject: Re: Plausibility of sendmail? Joaquin wrote: I check the FAQ and I couldn't find any reference to this. I noticed that exim is there, kewl!, but what about sendmail? Was there any work on porting this? BTW, I noticed that SFU3.5 seems to have a version of sendmail. Maybe you could elaborate a little on why you want sendmail. To my knowledge there has been no work done to even begin considering packaging sendmail for Cygwin, at least not officially (i.e. supported by this mailing list, cygwin.com, and the setup.exe program.) Someone, somewhere might have done it and succeeded, but you're at the mercy of Google in that case. Part of me really wants to ask why in god's name you'd want to inflict the utter crapulence of sendmail onto an otherwise innocent system, but that's really just being snide. If your intent is to use Windows+Cygwin+sendmail as a production mail server, then you would be much better served (no pun intended) running it on a native posix OS like Linux or FreeBSD, as there is a significant performance and security impact of emulating Posix under Windows. If you're just after 'sendmail compatibility' then both ssmtp and exim provide symbolic links to /usr/sbin/sendmail. So any script or other type of app that wants to just send out email by invoking the sendmail command should work fine. Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Plausibility of sendmail?
On another angle for this discussion. Consider that for one M$ $FU 3.5 has sendmail. Before this many commercial solutions charging quite a lot of $$ for sendmail under Windows. Microsoft even compiled a version of sendmail for the earliest versions of Windows NT 3.51 long ago and posted it on their ftp server. Other companies made sendmail-look-alike programs that could be scripted. There is demand there, but it is not so obvious. - Joaquin -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Plausibility of sendmail?
Brian Dessent [EMAIL PROTECTED]@cygwin.com on 02/02/2004 01:10:44 AM Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To:'Cygwin List' [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: Plausibility of sendmail? If your intent is to use Windows+Cygwin+sendmail as a production mail server, then you would be much better served (no pun intended) running it on a native posix OS like Linux or FreeBSD Seems to me you have not worked for many Fortune 500 size organizations - where almost ALL your hardware and software purchasing decisions are made by folks who *PRIDE* themselves on their *LACK* of technical expertise - as if such were somehow evidence of their inability to *MANAGE*. In fact, being a technical guru can often be career death in such places as the *can't do's* endlessly convince themselves that the *can do's* can't manage people. Which begs the question - WHAT DOES CHOOSING HARDWARE HAVE TO DO WITH *MANAGING PEOPLE* But they do it anyway. And of course when such *beings* make such decisions, they do so with assumptions like all open source is BAD (while their web servers are running Apache), and the CHEAPEST thing is *GOOD* - Intel rather than Sun or HP. Oh, but we can't run Linux because that's *bad* *unsupported* open source!! Then - their job done, and budget shot, they give a nearly impossible task to their *inferior guru's* that really should only be done in a Unix enviroment - enter CYGWIN. Of course it's *bad* open source, but now the *manager* has promised his/her management that this new functionality would be ready by week's end - without consulting the guru's first. So cygwin is agreed to as a *temporary* solution (with the understanding that temporary in such organizations could be two decades instead of three). This is how a need for something like sendmail on cygwin could conceivably come about - happens ALL the time. Joaquin wrote: I check the FAQ and I couldn't find any reference to this. I noticed that exim is there, kewl!, but what about sendmail? Was there any work on porting this? BTW, I noticed that SFU3.5 seems to have a version of sendmail. Maybe you could elaborate a little on why you want sendmail. To my knowledge there has been no work done to even begin considering packaging sendmail for Cygwin, at least not officially (i.e. supported by this mailing list, cygwin.com, and the setup.exe program.) Someone, somewhere might have done it and succeeded, but you're at the mercy of Google in that case. Part of me really wants to ask why in god's name you'd want to inflict the utter crapulence of sendmail onto an otherwise innocent system, but that's really just being snide. If your intent is to use Windows+Cygwin+sendmail as a production mail server, then you would be much better served (no pun intended) running it on a native posix OS like Linux or FreeBSD, as there is a significant performance and security impact of emulating Posix under Windows. If you're just after 'sendmail compatibility' then both ssmtp and exim provide symbolic links to /usr/sbin/sendmail. So any script or other type of app that wants to just send out email by invoking the sendmail command should work fine. Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ WellChoice, Inc. made the following annotations on 02/02/2004 07:02:31 AM -- Attention! This electronic message contains information that may be legally confidential and/or privileged. The information is intended solely for the individual or entity named above and access by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Release/Disclosure Statement -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Plausibility of sendmail?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seems to me you have not worked for many Fortune 500 size organizations - where almost ALL your hardware and software purchasing decisions are made by folks who *PRIDE* themselves on their *LACK* of technical expertise - as if such were somehow evidence of their inability to *MANAGE*. In fact, being a technical guru can often be career death in such places as the *can't do's* endlessly convince themselves that the *can do's* can't manage people. Which begs the question - WHAT DOES CHOOSING HARDWARE HAVE TO DO WITH *MANAGING PEOPLE* But they do it anyway. And of course when such *beings* make such decisions, they do so with assumptions like all open source is BAD (while their web servers are running Apache), and the CHEAPEST thing is *GOOD* - Intel rather than Sun or HP. Oh, but we can't run Linux because that's *bad* *unsupported* open source!! Yes, PHB types can make really terrible decisions. That doesn't mean that because they're in charge those plans should become feasible, just because that's what the bossman wants. My statement was only that you'd be much better served... with a native posix OS, especially where security and performance are required such as in a busy mail server in the DMZ. enviroment - enter CYGWIN. Of course it's *bad* open source, but now the *manager* has promised his/her management that this new functionality would be ready by week's end - without consulting the guru's first. So cygwin is agreed to as a *temporary* solution (with the understanding that temporary in such organizations could be two decades instead of three). This is how a need for something like sendmail on cygwin could conceivably come about - happens ALL the time. If someone is crazy enough to want a production mailserver with Cygwin, let them run Exim. I guess my point was more that sendmail is an old, crufty, impossible to comprehend pile of rotten bits and not Cygwin shouldn't have MTA packages available because it's unsuitable for production use. In other words, I view anything that could hasten (even if infinitesimally) the demise of sendmail as a feature and not a bug. Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Plausibility of sendmail?
If someone is crazy enough to want a production mailserver with Cygwin, let them run Exim. Point well taken. Having limited experience with mail servers in general, I will certainly keep your advice filed away in the ole noodle for future reference. Of course a lot of reasons that *crap* persists is because there's a lot of folks who are familiar with and experienced with such *crap*. For someone under the gun to come up with a quick fix, inevitably they will attempt to implement the familiar. If sendmail REALLY deserves to die, then keeping it out of the Cygwin distribution is something I would understand, and probably support (as long as there are advertised alternatives of course!) Brian Kelly Brian Dessent [EMAIL PROTECTED]@cygwin.com on 02/02/2004 09:33:56 AM Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: (bcc: Brian Kelly/WTC1/Empire) Subject:Re: Plausibility of sendmail? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seems to me you have not worked for many Fortune 500 size organizations - where almost ALL your hardware and software purchasing decisions are made by folks who *PRIDE* themselves on their *LACK* of technical expertise - as if such were somehow evidence of their inability to *MANAGE*. In fact, being a technical guru can often be career death in such places as the *can't do's* endlessly convince themselves that the *can do's* can't manage people. Which begs the question - WHAT DOES CHOOSING HARDWARE HAVE TO DO WITH *MANAGING PEOPLE* But they do it anyway. And of course when such *beings* make such decisions, they do so with assumptions like all open source is BAD (while their web servers are running Apache), and the CHEAPEST thing is *GOOD* - Intel rather than Sun or HP. Oh, but we can't run Linux because that's *bad* *unsupported* open source!! Yes, PHB types can make really terrible decisions. That doesn't mean that because they're in charge those plans should become feasible, just because that's what the bossman wants. My statement was only that you'd be much better served... with a native posix OS, especially where security and performance are required such as in a busy mail server in the DMZ. enviroment - enter CYGWIN. Of course it's *bad* open source, but now the *manager* has promised his/her management that this new functionality would be ready by week's end - without consulting the guru's first. So cygwin is agreed to as a *temporary* solution (with the understanding that temporary in such organizations could be two decades instead of three). This is how a need for something like sendmail on cygwin could conceivably come about - happens ALL the time. If someone is crazy enough to want a production mailserver with Cygwin, let them run Exim. I guess my point was more that sendmail is an old, crufty, impossible to comprehend pile of rotten bits and not Cygwin shouldn't have MTA packages available because it's unsuitable for production use. In other words, I view anything that could hasten (even if infinitesimally) the demise of sendmail as a feature and not a bug. Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ WellChoice, Inc. made the following annotations on 02/02/2004 10:07:12 AM -- Attention! This electronic message contains information that may be legally confidential and/or privileged. The information is intended solely for the individual or entity named above and access by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Release/Disclosure Statement -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Plausibility of sendmail?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If someone is crazy enough to want a production mailserver with Cygwin, let them run Exim. Point well taken. Having limited experience with mail servers in general, I will certainly keep your advice filed away in the ole noodle for future reference. Of course a lot of reasons that *crap* persists is because there's a lot of folks who are familiar with and experienced with such *crap*. For someone under the gun to come up with a quick fix, inevitably they will attempt to implement the familiar. If sendmail REALLY deserves to die, then keeping it out of the Cygwin distribution is something I would understand, and probably support (as long as there are advertised alternatives of course!) Well, I don't see sendmail dying anytime soon. It's still running on something like half of all mail servers, and I'm pretty sure it's still the #1 MTA. But, it's decades old and has reams and reams of security bulletins, both past and present (and future!) Security was just not such a concern back before The Internet existed, when ARPAnet and this new TCP/IP thing were all the rage. It's configured with a sendmail.cf file that closely resembles line noise and is so byzantine that it takes a 1232 page O'Reilly book to explain it. It's rumoured that some sendmail developers don't even understand parts of the file. The recommended advise is to never touch it, but instead edit the more friendly .mc file which is passed through a number of m4 macros to generate the .cf file. It sticks around due to legacy, as far as I can tell. It just works at a number of places and nobody wants to be the person to rip it all out and install something else. It also has support for some really anachronistic features (e.g. UUCP) that you likely won't find elsewhere. It's probably got the worst performance of the big four, but it can be made to do most of the things that you would ever want out of an MTA, and since it's so old everything's at least documented pretty well. So, if you use Webmin to configure it, and you stay up to date with your patches, and you aren't trying to run a whole enterprise's mail on a Pentium then it will probably work fine. I suppose it would be unfair to call it crap, and you will always be able to find those who defend it with the same level of fanaticism as a heated vi-vs-emacs argument. And to swing this back on-topic, I personally don't think it should be propagated to new places where it has yet to exist, such as Cygwin, especially when viable alternatives already exist there. Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Plausibility of sendmail?
As far as whether it gets in the cygwin distribution, it is primarily a function of whether someone is willing to port it to cygwin and maintain it. Otherwise, it won't. Someone asks about sendmail for cygwin periodically but I have never seen anyone express an interest in actually doing the port and seving as maintainer. From what Brian Dessant says about the state of the code base, it is pretty obvious why. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brian Dessent Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 10:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Plausibility of sendmail? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If someone is crazy enough to want a production mailserver with Cygwin, let them run Exim. Point well taken. Having limited experience with mail servers in general, I will certainly keep your advice filed away in the ole noodle for future reference. Of course a lot of reasons that *crap* persists is because there's a lot of folks who are familiar with and experienced with such *crap*. For someone under the gun to come up with a quick fix, inevitably they will attempt to implement the familiar. If sendmail REALLY deserves to die, then keeping it out of the Cygwin distribution is something I would understand, and probably support (as long as there are advertised alternatives of course!) Well, I don't see sendmail dying anytime soon. It's still running on something like half of all mail servers, and I'm pretty sure it's still the #1 MTA. But, it's decades old and has reams and reams of security bulletins, both past and present (and future!) Security was just not such a concern back before The Internet existed, when ARPAnet and this new TCP/IP thing were all the rage. It's configured with a sendmail.cf file that closely resembles line noise and is so byzantine that it takes a 1232 page O'Reilly book to explain it. It's rumoured that some sendmail developers don't even understand parts of the file. The recommended advise is to never touch it, but instead edit the more friendly .mc file which is passed through a number of m4 macros to generate the .cf file. It sticks around due to legacy, as far as I can tell. It just works at a number of places and nobody wants to be the person to rip it all out and install something else. It also has support for some really anachronistic features (e.g. UUCP) that you likely won't find elsewhere. It's probably got the worst performance of the big four, but it can be made to do most of the things that you would ever want out of an MTA, and since it's so old everything's at least documented pretty well. So, if you use Webmin to configure it, and you stay up to date with your patches, and you aren't trying to run a whole enterprise's mail on a Pentium then it will probably work fine. I suppose it would be unfair to call it crap, and you will always be able to find those who defend it with the same level of fanaticism as a heated vi-vs-emacs argument. And to swing this back on-topic, I personally don't think it should be propagated to new places where it has yet to exist, such as Cygwin, especially when viable alternatives already exist there. Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Plausibility of sendmail?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seems to me you have not worked for many Fortune 500 size organizations - where almost ALL your hardware and software purchasing decisions are made by folks who *PRIDE* themselves on their *LACK* of technical expertise - as if such were somehow evidence of their inability to *MANAGE*. In fact, being a technical guru can often be career death in such places as the *can't do's* endlessly convince themselves that the *can do's* can't manage people. Which begs the question - WHAT DOES CHOOSING HARDWARE HAVE TO DO WITH *MANAGING PEOPLE* But they do it anyway. And of course when such *beings* make such decisions, they do so with assumptions like all open source is BAD (while their web servers are running Apache), and the CHEAPEST thing is *GOOD* - Intel rather than Sun or HP. Oh, but we can't run Linux because that's *bad* *unsupported* open source!! Then - their job done, and budget shot, they give a nearly impossible task to their *inferior guru's* that really should only be done in a Unix enviroment - enter CYGWIN. Of course it's *bad* open source, but now the *manager* has promised his/her management that this new functionality would be ready by week's end - without consulting the guru's first. So cygwin is agreed to as a *temporary* solution (with the understanding that temporary in such organizations could be two decades instead of three). This is how a need for something like sendmail on cygwin could conceivably come about - happens ALL the time. If they are so clueless as you suggest then one has to wonder why you tell them that you're running a Linux OS and using sendmail?!? Otherwise simply get exim and use it. Works fine. -- If you think that there is good in everybody, you haven't met everybody. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Plausibility of sendmail?
Andrew DeFaria wrote: If they are so clueless as you suggest then one has to wonder why you don't tell them that you're running a Linux OS and using sendmail?!? They know that Linux is *open source* and *dangerous* - because that's what the VERY political Server Team (who have sold out to Microsoft and all their propaganda) tells them. The more Wintel boxes, the more *power* they have. Since their job ends once the box is powered up and imaged with the *approved and 'supported' corporate load*, their job is done. They could CARE-A-LESS about anyone else's needs or problems. They run their own monitoring software on the box to make sure there is no un-scheduled downtime or lack of disk space. Trying to put Linux on the box would DEFINITELY be noticed - and would probably result in dismissal. Beyond that - they (Server Team) are'nt concerned about how the box is actually used (assuming of course that you have been designated the owner of the *resource* [which is different from owning the *box* itself - go figure]). The Server Team has more political clout because they own so *many* boxes, where you own only a *couple* of resources. Of course all the *boxes* are simple clones, but that little detail is overlooked by upper management. It's all a numbers game. So the Server Team's arguments win out over yours 98% of the time. Surely someone who manages a fleet of Cessna's knows more about flying than one guy in an F-18! - or so the thinking apparently goes. Brian.Kelly wrote: Seems to me you have not worked for many Fortune 500 size organizations - where almost ALL your hardware and software purchasing decisions are made by folks who *PRIDE* themselves on their *LACK* of technical expertise - as if such were somehow evidence of their inability to *MANAGE*. In fact, being a technical guru can often be career death in such places as the *can't do's* endlessly convince themselves that the *can do's* can't manage people. Which begs the question - WHAT DOES CHOOSING HARDWARE HAVE TO DO WITH *MANAGING PEOPLE* But they do it anyway. And of course when such *beings* make such decisions, they do so with assumptions like all open source is BAD (while their web servers are running Apache), and the CHEAPEST thing is *GOOD* - Intel rather than Sun or HP. Oh, but we can't run Linux because that's *bad* *unsupported* open source!! Then - their job done, and budget shot, they give a nearly impossible task to their *inferior guru's* that really should only be done in a Unix enviroment - enter CYGWIN. Of course it's *bad* open source, but now the *manager* has promised his/her management that this new functionality would be ready by week's end - without consulting the guru's first. So cygwin is agreed to as a *temporary* solution (with the understanding that temporary in such organizations could be two decades instead of three). This is how a need for something like sendmail on cygwin could conceivably come about - happens ALL the time. Andrew DeFaria wrote: If they are so clueless as you suggest then one has to wonder why you tell them that you're running a Linux OS and using sendmail?!? Otherwise simply get exim and use it. Works fine. -- If you think that there is good in everybody, you haven't met everybody. WellChoice, Inc. made the following annotations on 02/02/2004 01:08:25 PM -- Attention! This electronic message contains information that may be legally confidential and/or privileged. The information is intended solely for the individual or entity named above and access by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Release/Disclosure Statement -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Plausibility of sendmail?
Joaquin wrote: I check the FAQ and I couldn't find any reference to this. I noticed that exim is there, kewl!, but what about sendmail? Was there any work on porting this? BTW, I noticed that SFU3.5 seems to have a version of sendmail. Maybe you could elaborate a little on why you want sendmail. To my knowledge there has been no work done to even begin considering packaging sendmail for Cygwin, at least not officially (i.e. supported by this mailing list, cygwin.com, and the setup.exe program.) Someone, somewhere might have done it and succeeded, but you're at the mercy of Google in that case. Part of me really wants to ask why in god's name you'd want to inflict the utter crapulence of sendmail onto an otherwise innocent system, but that's really just being snide. If your intent is to use Windows+Cygwin+sendmail as a production mail server, then you would be much better served (no pun intended) running it on a native posix OS like Linux or FreeBSD, as there is a significant performance and security impact of emulating Posix under Windows. If you're just after 'sendmail compatibility' then both ssmtp and exim provide symbolic links to /usr/sbin/sendmail. So any script or other type of app that wants to just send out email by invoking the sendmail command should work fine. Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
