On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Mark Baker wrote:
:
:In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Alexander Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
:> Both qmail (which proved insecure <most evil grin>) and Exim are not capable
:> of UUCP or even bang paths! So a lot of those guys in countries where phone
:> costs are terrible (like in Germany) still use it and they WILL have a
problem
:> then.
:
:Exim is not capable of bang paths, true, but not many people still use them.
:It _is_ capable of uucp so long as you use domain addressing. Admittedly it
:is not obvious how to set it up to do so.
:
:In any case, I don't see anyone suggesting we get rid of smail or sendmail
:from the distribution entirely.
If you got rid of sendmail I think I'd be upset :) I can see the
attractiveness of running a simpler mailer on a smaller site. We have a
big site, and I understand sendmail (to some extent, anyway - enough to
be dangerous). I personally like it. I personally like a lot of things
that many people don't like, so I don't care if my pet packages are the
default ... I do wish I had a longer day so I could try some of these
things out.
Not that anyone necessarily has the time, but would it be worthwhile to
create some documents listing categories of packages, comparing and
contrasting the competing packages? I know the package descriptions
provide this info to some extent, but I guess I'm thinking of a web page
that has a 'Mail Packages' link, or whatever ... following the link
shows you a list of what's available and how they compare ... if I had
the time I'd write something like this. Right now I don't :/
--
Nathan Norman : Hostmaster CFNI : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key and other stuff
Key fingerprint = CE 03 10 AF 32 81 18 58 9D 32 C2 AB 93 6D C4 72
--
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
