From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sun Dec 10 21:49:12 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B05FE9E41A for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 21:49:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adamw@adamw.org) Received: from apnoea.adamw.org (apnoea.adamw.org [104.225.5.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "apnoea.adamw.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54EFD64A6D; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 21:49:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adamw@adamw.org) Received: by apnoea.adamw.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id e6801b7e TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:49:09 -0700 (MST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; delsp=yes; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) Subject: Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check From: Adam Weinberger In-Reply-To: <20171210171122.GA48536@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:49:02 -0700 Cc: Matthew Seaman , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: References: <20171208180905.GA96560@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20171209012522.GA42506@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20171210171122.GA48536@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 21:49:12 -0000 > On 10 Dec, 2017, at 10:11, Steve Kargl > 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 -- Adam Weinberger adamw@adamw.org http://www.adamw.org