From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Apr 9 07:52:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA23632 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 07:52:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from haywire.DIALix.COM (news@haywire.dialix.com [192.203.228.65]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA23585 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 07:51:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from news@localhost) by haywire.DIALix.COM (8.8.4/8.8.2) id WAA02379 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 22:51:32 +0800 (WST) X-Authentication-Warning: haywire.DIALix.COM: news set sender to usenet-request@haywire.dialix.com using -f Received: from GATEWAY by haywire.DIALix.COM with netnews for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org (problems to: usenet@haywire.dialix.com) To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Date: 9 Apr 1997 14:51:31 GMT From: peter@spinner.DIALix.COM (Peter Wemm) Message-ID: <860597491.656387@haywire.DIALix.COM> Organization: DIALix Internet Services References: <199704061600.MAA22131@lakes.water.net> Subject: Re: sendmail in 2.2 Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In article <199704061600.MAA22131@lakes.water.net>, ponds!rivers@dg-rtp.dg.com (Thomas David Rivers) writes: >> >> From: proff@suburbia.net >> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 19:43:16 +1000 (EST) >> >> My gee-whiz qmail auto-everything port has been in >> ftp.FreeBSD.org:/pub/FreeBSD/incoming for a while now (hint); >> >> Cheers, >> Julian. >> >> Are we ready for religious wars? I certainly think that qmail should be >> an optional MTA for freebsd (if it can't be the default). Admittedly, >> you have to do things 'differently' with qmail, but arguably, the >> 'different' way is the way it should always have been. >> >> Let the people decide! If the port already exists, why isn't it in there? >> >> -mark >> > > Ok - I'm ready to be convinced (I've hacked on sendmail enough to > think "there's got to be an easier way.") > > I've got several machines all networked together on a private network; > mail goes out/comes in on one of the machines via a UUCP connection. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Each user has a .forward which sends the mail to their own machine > (a reasonable approach on a small network.) Also, there are two Win/95 > machines I'd like to add to this... > > Can qmail handle it, and, if so, how do I set it up? > > - Dave Rivers - Last time I checked, I got the impression that qmail didn't support uucp-style addressing. I think there was a way of using uucp if you used BSMTP style encapsulation of messages rather than rmail style. Mind you, I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing, unless you happen to be on the back end of an rmail stytle mail feed. IMHO, uucp ! syntax needs to die. -Peter