From owner-cvs-all Thu Dec 31 10:07:34 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA27756 for cvs-all-outgoing; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:07:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail.eecis.udel.edu (louie.udel.edu [128.175.2.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA27750; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:07:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexandr@mail.eecis.udel.edu) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:07:32 -0800 (PST) From: alexandr@mail.eecis.udel.edu Message-Id: <199812311807.KAA27750@hub.freebsd.org> Received: from ren.eecis.udel.edu by mail.eecis.udel.edu id aa06349; 31 Dec 1998 12:55 EST To: "Jonathan M. Bresler" Cc: dcs@newsguy.com, committers@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: HEADS UP: Postfix is coming. new uid, gid required. Organization: Mos Eisley Candy Store Reply-To: alexandr@mail.eecis.udel.edu Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk In Reply to Your Message of Thu, 31 Dec 1998 06: 57:45 PST Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 12:55:20 -0500 From: Jerry Alexandratos Message-ID: <199812311255.aa06349@mail.eecis.udel.edu> "Jonathan M. Bresler" says: : > Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 23:40:24 +0900 : > From: "Daniel C. Sobral" : > : > As horrible as sendmail is, I doubt we could remove it from the : > source without a major riot. So, what it is GAINED by having Postfix : > in the contrib instead of the ports? : : for many of our users sendmail.cf is a major hurdle. i know i have : made money customizing sendmail.cf for people. postfix does the : common sendmail.cf reconfiguration issues and does them in a way : that people can roll their own and wont have to pay people like me. : (hey....wait a minute....why am i doing this. ;) : : canonicalization, virtual hosts, spam control, etc. the .mc files : go a long way to making this easier, but people still flounder. I'm not disagreeing with any of the "benefits" of postfix. However, everything you just mentioned about postfix (sendmail drop-in compatible, human-readable configuration files, scales well to large installations, etc...) is being done and has been done by exim over the past few years. Hey, except for the "sendmail drop-in" even qmail has met all of the other qualifications. So why did we never think of putting these mailers in the tree? However, here's my real bone of contention. The FreeBSD project has always been precise and deliberate with what is placed in the source tree, with the emphasis being stability. Look, we're still using what everyone and their grandmother calls "a way old compiler" (and yes, we've almost always been a major version behind). It took forever to get perl5 into the tree. We still haven't upgraded to the latest version of CVS. Yada, yada, yada... And now... Now we want to put a *beta* mailer for which new security holes and bugs are being found every day in the source tree instead of the ports tree. I swear, it's almost like we've become victims of IBM's marketing machine. Personally, I think we should focus our efforts on putting either gcc28 or egcs in the tree. 8) --Jerry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message