On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 17:08:46 -0500 (EST)
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 03-Apr-2003 Dr Daniel Flickinger wrote:
> > Secondly, I add the following to /etc/rc.conf:
> >
> > mta_start_script="" # 2917: block their startup stealth attack
> > sendmail_enable="NO"
On 03-Apr-2003 Dr Daniel Flickinger wrote:
> Secondly, I add the following to /etc/rc.conf:
>
> mta_start_script="" # 2917: block their startup stealth attack
> sendmail_enable="NO"
> sendmail_outbound_enable="NO"
> sendmail_msp_queue_enable="NO"
> sendmail_
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 01:29, Don wrote:
> Seriously though, I _always_ replace sendmail with postfix and I have
> never had a problem doing so. Other than one or two really trivial
> anyway.
>
> What problems do people run into when replacing sendmail? How many of
> those problems come as a result of
John Baldwin wrote:
> On 02-Apr-2003 Jens Rehsack wrote:
> > I really think splitting the base in some sub-parts would it make much
> > easier to do NO_SENDMAIL on my own. So I had to remove each not required
> > file separately. That's no good solution.
>
> [stepping back a bit ]
>
> I find an
On 2003-04-02 23:28, Dan Naumov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 21:56:40 +0200
>Wilko Bulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 02:29:30PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
>>>
>>> I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
>>> one hand, people are
Terry Lambert wrote:
Jens Rehsack wrote:
John Baldwin wrote:
First, core@ is not the appropriate body for that type of request.
Both current@ and arch@ are much better targets. Second, is
NO_SENDMAIL + the postfix port inadequate?
The problem I see with that is, that even a minimalistic base ins
Peter Schultz wrote:
> Terry Lambert wrote:
> > If you look over the historical cases of this discussion,
> > you'll see that the answer always comes down to "make the
> > system more modular, so people can replace XXX with YYY and
> > quit bothering us; please send patches". 8-) 8-).
>
> Thanks
Jens Rehsack wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
> > First, core@ is not the appropriate body for that type of request.
> > Both current@ and arch@ are much better targets. Second, is
> > NO_SENDMAIL + the postfix port inadequate?
>
> The problem I see with that is, that even a minimalistic base install
On 02-Apr-2003 Dan Naumov wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 21:56:40 +0200
> Wilko Bulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 02:29:30PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
>> >
>> > I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
>> > one hand, people are always wanting
Dan Naumov wrote:
> Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Because syslog is unreliable. See "BUGS" section of the man page.
>
> Don't you think that if syslog is unreliable, then it should be fixed ?
Sure. You should definitely fix it; you'll need to figure out
a way to know whether we've run out of mbufs,
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 10:27:04AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Peter Schultz writes:
> : I hope that core will approve removing sendmail from FreeBSD-CURRENT.
>
> Request denied.
>
> 1) you made no case for it: Everybdoy knows this is a contentious
>issue, yet n
Am Mi, 2003-04-02 um 22.28 schrieb Dan Naumov:
> I think being able to update just about ANYTHING, except the kernel
> without the need for a reboot is one of the best features of Linux and
> actual advantages it has over FreeBSD.
I see no real barriers at updating
while running FreeBSD in compar
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 11:28:53PM +0300, Dan Naumov wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 21:56:40 +0200
> Wilko Bulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 02:29:30PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> > >
> > > I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
> > > one ha
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 21:56:40 +0200
Wilko Bulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 02:29:30PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> >
> > I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
> > one hand, people are always wanting to split the entire base system
> > up into
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Dan Naumov wrote:
DN>On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 14:29:30 -0500 (EST)
DN>John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DN>
DN>> I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
DN>> one hand, people are always wanting to split the entire base system
DN>> up into small pack
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 02:29:30PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
...
> [stepping back a bit ]
>
> I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
> one hand, people are always wanting to split the entire base system
> up into small packages for each little piece of the base. O
On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 14:29:30 -0500 (EST)
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
> one hand, people are always wanting to split the entire base system
> up into small packages for each little piece of the base. On the
> other h
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> Maybe this page could also contain an option to show the list of
> files, and maybe even a "backwards" option to tell which options
> are involved in a particular file or directorys existence.
>
> So, to answer you question: I like it as it is
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Baldwin writes:
>I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
>one hand, people are always wanting to split the entire base system
>up into small packages for each little piece of the base. On the
>other hand, one of FreeBSD's selling po
On Wed Apr 02, 2003 at 02:29:30PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > I really think splitting the base in some sub-parts would it make much
> > easier to do NO_SENDMAIL on my own. So I had to remove each not required
> > file separately. That's no good solution.
>
> [stepping back a bit ]
>
> I
On 02-Apr-2003 Jens Rehsack wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
>> On 02-Apr-2003 Peter Schultz wrote:
>>
>>>I'm sorry for beating a dead horse. A guy and I from tcbug were just
>>>trying to fix his postfix installation, he does not know what happened,
>>>it just stopped working. There would not hav
David O'Brien wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 06:01:01PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote:
The problem I see with that is, that even a minimalistic base install
installs things like sendmail, ppp, atm-stuff, g77 and so on.
I would love to see the toolchain broken out into its own tarball like
NetBSD. It
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 06:01:01PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote:
> The problem I see with that is, that even a minimalistic base install
> installs things like sendmail, ppp, atm-stuff, g77 and so on.
I would love to see the toolchain broken out into its own tarball like
NetBSD. It isn't a simple 1
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Peter Schultz writes:
: I hope that core will approve removing sendmail from FreeBSD-CURRENT.
Request denied.
1) you made no case for it: Everybdoy knows this is a contentious
issue, yet no reasons were given.
2) You cc'd core and a public mailing list. Don't ev
On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 10:59:25 -0600
Peter Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [x] sendmail ... (default)
> [ ] postfix ...
> [ ] exim ...
> [ ] qmail ...
> [ ] none (caution: desktop users only, insecure use of syslog)
AFAIK, "sendmail", "postfix" and "none" are the options presented to the
user
John Baldwin wrote:
On 02-Apr-2003 Peter Schultz wrote:
I'm sorry for beating a dead horse. A guy and I from tcbug were just
trying to fix his postfix installation, he does not know what happened,
it just stopped working. There would not have been a problem if
sendmail wasn't tied into the sy
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jens Rehsack writes:
>The problem I see with that is, that even a minimalistic base install
>installs things like sendmail, ppp, atm-stuff, g77 and so on.
>
>I really think splitting the base in some sub-parts would it make much
>easier to do NO_SENDMAIL on my own
Terry Lambert wrote:
If you look over the historical cases of this discussion,
you'll see that the answer always comes down to "make the
system more modular, so people can replace XXX with YYY and
quit bothering us; please send patches". 8-) 8-).
Thanks for your help on this. I've been getting so
John Baldwin wrote:
On 02-Apr-2003 Peter Schultz wrote:
I'm sorry for beating a dead horse. A guy and I from tcbug were just
trying to fix his postfix installation, he does not know what happened,
it just stopped working. There would not have been a problem if
sendmail wasn't tied into the sy
> Don't you think that if syslog is unreliable, then it should be fixed ?
> If things are as you say, we have 2 problems: Sendmail gettings CERTs
> every other day and an unreliable system logger. Would you rather just
> let things be as they are ?
Absolutely not! Fix the problems and they would be
On 02-Apr-2003 Peter Schultz wrote:
> I'm sorry for beating a dead horse. A guy and I from tcbug were just
> trying to fix his postfix installation, he does not know what happened,
> it just stopped working. There would not have been a problem if
> sendmail wasn't tied into the system so clos
Terry Lambert wrote:
> Because syslog is unreliable. See "BUGS" section of the man page.
Don't you think that if syslog is unreliable, then it should be fixed ?
If things are as you say, we have 2 problems: Sendmail gettings CERTs
every other day and an unreliable system logger. Would you rather
Peter Schultz wrote:
> Why not just have these logged by default instead? Like /var/log/daily,
> and whatnot. Anyone with half a care about this stuff can easily make
> their own modifications, those who don't care will never know the
> difference.
Because syslog is unreliable. See "BUGS" secti
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Schultz writes:
>I'm sorry for beating a dead horse.
This is the best summary so far on this subject.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Terry Lambert wrote:
Peter Schultz wrote:
Hi,
I hope that core will approve removing sendmail from FreeBSD-CURRENT.
I'm pretty sure they will, just as soon as someone provides
patches to make installed base system components like sendmail
into "preinstalled packages", and then steps up and make
Peter Schultz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I hope that core will approve removing sendmail from FreeBSD-CURRENT.
I'm pretty sure they will, just as soon as someone provides
patches to make installed base system components like sendmail
into "preinstalled packages", and then steps up and makes some
other MTA
36 matches
Mail list logo
