Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 10:59:25 -0600 From: Peter Schultz <peter@jocose.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removing Sendmail Message-ID: <3E8B16ED.1090300@jocose.org> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030402105454.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <XFMail.20030402105454.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote: > On 02-Apr-2003 Peter Schultz wrote: > >>I'm sorry for beating a dead horse. A guy and I from tcbug were just >>trying to fix his postfix installation, he does not know what happened, >>it just stopped working. There would not have been a problem if >>sendmail wasn't tied into the system so closely. I'm just hoping core >>will say, "submit a working solution and it will be done," so that >>there's a little inspiration here. >> >>Pete... > > > First, core@ is not the appropriate body for that type of request. > Both current@ and arch@ are much better targets. I understand, thanks for clarifying. > Second, is NO_SENDMAIL + the postfix port inadequate? > I guess. I was helping him on #tcbug this morning, and he certainly missed something somewhere between the two. He claimed it "just stopped working." I don't know what all he did, but he was sure going crazy trying to fix it. I helped him get around the problem, but I couldn't help but think it would be nice for FreeBSD administrators to have a smoother solution. How about requiring a decision at install time, during the final configuration: [x] sendmail ... (default) [ ] postfix ... [ ] exim ... [ ] qmail ... [ ] none (caution: desktop users only, insecure use of syslog) Pete...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E8B16ED.1090300>