From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 24 14:46:05 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 816851E0 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:46:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39ADE1DF8 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:46:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.41]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A582210DA for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:45:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from web3 ([10.202.2.213]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:45:59 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=message-id:from:to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:references :subject:date; s=smtpout; bh=uKYKhWd3CQKJAN8AmJcLJ6hxDwQ=; b=NbO 9PBvdcSJOjuRY7E3bBFXwI4nkW4LEwm99CSlxInJm80RBbcoE+vGT4+OfapllLqq hHqrtz+DnSgdG6uGFRqgex5qSMMVjM1fwqmeXK8lKy2FzOsOhLKEV+ifdi+BHt9G FtRXYELWz9Ln/bLZ1KsJ9RIjRBsDInuokSrgdQGU= Received: by web3.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix, from userid 99) id 97B9E162115; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:45:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1393253158.31965.87110609.756BD6A0@webmail.messagingengine.com> X-Sasl-Enc: veUNFUN7O6Risfiy0ipb1s5qmtSqmpJIowjNLcyt9myj 1393253158 From: Mark Felder To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-4527a23f In-Reply-To: <530B13CA.6000005@rewt.org.uk> References: <20140223211155.GS1699@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <530B13CA.6000005@rewt.org.uk> Subject: Re: Import of DragonFly Mail Agent Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:45:58 -0600 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:46:05 -0000 On Mon, Feb 24, 2014, at 3:41, Joe Holden wrote: > On 24/02/2014 04:26, Julio Merino wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> As some of you may have noticed, I have imorted a couple of days ago dma > >> (DragonFly Mail Agent) in base. I have been asked to explain my motivation > >> so > >> here they are. > >> > >> DragonFly Mail Agent is a minimalistic mailer that is able to relay mails > >> to > >> some smtp servers (with TLS, authentication and so on) > >> > >> It supports MASQUERADE and NULLCLIENT, and is able to deliver mails locally > >> (respecting aliases). > >> > >> I imported it because dma is lightweight, BSD license and easy to use. > >> > >> The code base is rather small and easy to capsicumize (which I plan to do) > >> > >> My initial goal is not to replace sendmail. > > > > > > But is it an eventual goal? *I* don't see why not, but if it is: what's > > the plan? How is the decision to drop sendmail going to be made when the > > time comes? (I.e. who _can_ and will make the call?) > > > > > >> All I want is a small mailer > >> simple to configure, and not listening to port 25, suitable for small > >> environment (embedded and/or resource bounded) as well as for server > >> deployment. > >> > > > > Playing devil's advocate: what specific problems is this trying to solve? > > I'd argue, for example, that postfix can be also easily configured and can > > be made to not listen on port 25 for local mail delivery, while at the same > > time it is a fully-functional MTA that could replace sendmail altogether. > > (Which, by the way, is the configuration with which postfix ships within > > the NetBSD base system.) > > > > The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have seen NetBSD > > maintain two MTAs (sendmail + postfix) in the base system for _years_ and > > it was not a pretty situation. The eventual removal of sendmail was > > appreciated, but of course it came with the associated bikeshedding. > *dons flame-proof suit* > > The trend towards having sensible lightweight things in the base is a > good thing IMO. There is no need for things like bind (replaced by > unbound), or a full featured mta like sendmail in the base, base install > should contain enough to get going but for specific functions like > performing MTA tasks, the user can install the appropriate software, > such as postfix. > > Just my 2p :) > I fully agree here. Lightweight services in base, fully featured in ports. It makes it easier for users to follow the latest and greatest MTA, DNS, etc this way as well. Another nice feature of dma is that it's a perfect compliment to your lightweight jails -- emails can get out, but no worrying about conflicts on ports 25.