Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 01:57:24 -0700 From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu Cc: David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.org>, Gregory Neil Shapiro <gshapiro@FreeBSD.org>, "Jin Guojun[DSD]" <j_guojun@lbl.gov>, FreeBSD-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Adding a dont_use_any_sendmail knob Message-ID: <3D1198F4.2FC3EF44@FreeBSD.org> References: <3D0FB406.83DE356D@lbl.gov> <20020618155900.O2483-100000@master.gorean.org> <15632.6996.519381.823439@horsey.gshapiro.net> <3D102055.F08DD2AE@FreeBSD.org> <15632.9131.365021.260177@horsey.gshapiro.net> <20020619104912.B41546@dragon.nuxi.com> <20020619115556.D21469@blossom.cjclark.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Crist J. Clark" wrote: > I don't think there would be much of an issue if it were only changed > in -CURRENT (see my last remark), but this change was made to -STABLE > and just hit its first -RELEASE cycle. And now that it's in a release, even more users are confused, and asking questions about it. > Those who use alternate MTAs or just have something against > sendmail(8) got upset because now when they switched 'sendmail_enable' > to "NO," they _still_ had a sendmail(8) daemon listening. I don't see it that way at all. This is not an "anti-sendmail" thing. I myself use sendmail, both for outgoing and incoming mail. My point is simply that users are confused about this current state of events, and we should do something to make things more clear. Doug To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D1198F4.2FC3EF44>