From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Thu Dec 7 15:32:42 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@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 AD950E8A449 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 15:32:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96CAB688F8 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 15:32:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 96301E8A448; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 15:32:42 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: arch@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 95C70E8A447 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 15:32:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: from pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 663D3688F6; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 15:32:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: from pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id vB7FWd4A062723; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 07:32:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id vB7FWb4A062722; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 07:32:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <201712071532.vB7FWb4A062722@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: Sendmail deprecation ? In-Reply-To: <201712070348.vB73mesl095194@slippy.cwsent.com> To: Cy Schubert Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 07:32:37 -0800 (PST) CC: Cy Schubert , gjb@freebsd.org, "Pokala, Ravi" , ghapiro@freebsd.org, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" , "cem@freebsd.org" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 15:32:42 -0000 > In message <201712070251.vB72p58k054508@slippy.cwsent.com>, Cy Schubert > writes: > > In message , "Pokala, > > Ravi" w > > rites: > > > So less "no dma(8)", and more "no default MTA at all; make them select one" > > ? > > > > Yes. > > Thinking about this further and softening my position a little, I'd be > satisfied with a knob to not build dma in base at all. (Though the desire > to remove bloat I prefer not to replace when something is removed.) > > Upline sendmail hasn't been updated for a a year and almost eight months. > (I had misgivings of the sale.) Having said that, I think sendmail's time > has come however I'm not convinced replacing it with another default MTA is > the solution. A stub like pkg that could install a package, providing the > user with a list to choose from, possibly timing out after a short period > of time to install the dma pkg (or port) makes the most sense to me and > should be a good compromise for all. > > As gjb@ has been working toward packaged base, would it not be a good time > for the MTA replacement project to consider relying on dma ports/packages? > > Ports/packages are just as much FreeBSD as base is. Why do we not just wait for pkg base? These silly threads on "axe this" are just waisting time that should be spent on getting pkg base done and then these issues become pretty much a /dev/null. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org