Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 19:33:48 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Feldman <green@unixhelp.org> To: alexandr@mail.eecis.udel.edu Cc: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb@FreeBSD.ORG>, dcs@newsguy.com, committers@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: HEADS UP: Postfix is coming. new uid, gid required. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9812311929450.3621-100000@janus.syracuse.net> In-Reply-To: <199812311807.KAA27750@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 alexandr@mail.eecis.udel.edu wrote: > 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 <alexandr@mail.eecis.udel.edu> > Message-ID: <199812311255.aa06349@mail.eecis.udel.edu> > > "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb@freebsd.org> says: > : > Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 23:40:24 +0900 > : > From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> > : > > : > 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) You neglect to understand how "we" works. For certain things, implementing something as a team works: when you have a large project and a clear direction stated. Things will intercorrelate correctly. But on a small project, such as a port (or merge) usually is, a single person with many testers who bash on <insert product here> is best. Testing things is what takes many people, developing a finely-grained project is something for a single person. > > --Jerry > Brian Feldman _ __ ___ ___ ___ green@unixhelp.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \ http://www.freebsd.org/ _ __ ___ ____ | _ \__ \ |) | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ ___ ____ _____ |___/___/___/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9812311929450.3621-100000>