On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:49:02 -0700 "Adam Weinberger" <ad...@adamw.org> said
> On 10 Dec, 2017, at 10:11, Steve Kargl <s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 01:21:13PM +0000, Matthew Seaman wrote:
>> Hence the current sendmail in base is neither fish nor fowl: way
>> overpowered for almost all installations, but with significant
>> limitations for a machine providing a full-blown mail service.
>> Personally I agree with his reasoning: unless the primary function of
>> your FreeBSD machine is to be an MTA, you really don't need any more
>> capability than to either deliver to a local mailbox, or forward all
>> e-mails to a smart host. Certainly you don't need anything capable of
>> receiving incoming e-mails.
>
> I disagree. FreeBSd used to pride itself on being a complete operating
> system oout-of-the-box. Lately, a smaller number of developers are
> moving FreeBSD to being a kernel with a bunch of add-on software.
>
> dma(1) does not support a .forward file and by extension vacation(1).
> Without .forward, then those of use who use procmail(1) (subject of
> this email thread) in .forward and by extension spamassisin are
> hosed.
>
> Chapter 27 of the FreeBSD Handbook would need to be rewritten before
> sendmail can be removed. It is assumed that sendmail is installed
> with base.
Hi Steve,
I agree with you about the merits of FreeBSD providing a complete system
out-of-the-box. But of all the mail servers out there, sendmail is the most
archaic and arcane. Sendmail is used primarily by people who are intimately
familiar with it over a long history, and simply isn’t a great choice for
people getting into mail servers. I’d rather see sendmail installable
through ports, and replaced in base with a better solution. Sendmail is too
difficult to configure correctly; we should keep it trivial to install
(i.e. ports) for those who prefer it, but it shouldn’t be our primary
recommendation for users looking for a new MTA.
DMA is a phenomenal program and is totally sufficient for a large
percentage of our user-base. I wasn’t aware of the lack of .forward
support, and I completely agree that that’s a very detrimental omission.
# Adam
OK I'm puzzled a bit. FreeBSD' motto has always been:
FreeBSD
The power to serve!
but many of the proposed, and recent changes/removals end up more like:
FreeBSD
I's castrated!
IOW
Why the big push to eliminate perhaps it's biggest attributes. FreeBSD
has always been a *server* out-of-the-box. This should never change.
You need something other than a server? You can install almost every
other OS/distro. Let's also not forget, that if you need a FreeBSD
/desktop/ one need only look at the fork to accomplish just that
http://www.desktopbsd.net/
Want to produce a FreeBSD desktop from the FreeBSD source?
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/x11-wm.html
from the handbook. There's also much documentation on all the other
possibilities regarding more lightweight alternatives to the
applications installed in $BASE.
You don't want Sendmail installed by/as default? FreeBSD *already*
provides that option in src.conf(5):
WITHOUT_SENDMAIL=true
and a myriad of other possibilities -- including the addition of
things from ports(7)!
Please, let's not attempt to dilute FreeBSD' biggest strengths/
value anymore that has already been done. FreeBSD' strongest
attribute is it's being quite possibly, the best server installation
out-of-the-box -- certainly the closest POSIX server out-of-the-box.
Why remove it's best selling point/attribute?
--Chris
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
