Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:34:57 +0100 From: "Karsten W. Rohrbach" <karsten@rohrbach.de> To: "Kohler, Raymond J" <raymond.j.kohler@lmco.com> Cc: "'gshapiro@freebsd.org'" <gshapiro@freebsd.org>, "'stable@freebsd.org'" <stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: sendmail 8.12.2 MFC'ed Message-ID: <20020326223457.B25907@mail.webmonster.de> In-Reply-To: <B1B0DD19298CD41195A600508BF9067A04446A1E@emss04m08.ems.lmco.com>; from raymond.j.kohler@lmco.com on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 03:45:14PM -0500 References: <B1B0DD19298CD41195A600508BF9067A04446A1E@emss04m08.ems.lmco.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Bn2rw/3z4jIqBvZU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kohler, Raymond J(raymond.j.kohler@lmco.com)@2002.03.26 15:45:14 +0000: > One question about this: now that we have 4 different ways to run sendmai= l, > which do I run simply to get the output from periodic mailed correctly? > That's all I use sendmail for and I'd like to keep its use to a minimum. > Thanks. some dumbfire binmail implementation should take it's place. mail subsystems should be available as package/port. bsd has always followed a paradigm for source code management, installation, upgrades and overall implementation issues which is straightforward, mostly uncomplicated, thus less error-prone than other *ix systems -- a paradigm not found much in the sysv-infested world of /etc directories one might nowadays call a "registry". this is a strong point in bsd systems which makes them much more valuable than other more complicated systems, IMVHO, because it gains stability, resiliency and ease of administration. the question is: why the hell are complex (or rather complicated) subsystems that often stay unused still in the base distribution? it is simply not consequent, not following the main paradigm of bsd's design, to have subsystems like sendmail or bind in the base dist, where simpler, more starightforward, client only implementations would do the job in most cases. why not put apache into the base dist? or webmin? or postgres? this would actually make sense in terms of a "more complete" base distribution, but it simply does not fit the picture we all have from bsd: being a simple, straighforward, rock-solid dist, with no "bells and whistles" (actually there are a lot, but they are well hidden), with less "chrome" than other widespread *ix dists. i don't want to spoil the image of all the committers, of all the people doing hard work, contributing to the project, but the default installation in some points just doesn't make sense to me, relative to my perception of bsd. it's mainly a philosophical thing, and i can't understand why it is done the way it is done today. we got the year 2002, where everybody is free to choose "some" free os, "some" mua, "some" you name it, but i (as a user) still stick to freebsd because i know that it is one of the finest operating systems "out there", delivering excellent performance, even under heaviest of loads, being rock-solid and thus, serving as a profound basis for internet services. and it even gets better from release to release, this is a great achievement, and i enjoy every minor version-bump. as it comes to my systems, i put together a small shell script which actually _removes_ parts of the stuff that is installed by default. there are the NO_* build options, but why aren't they used in the official release? a question should be integrated into sysinstall, that simply asks: "mua: fish or flesh?" (or whatever you may call it). i simply don't get it. still. since about 4+ years now. and counting... please, make such complex software a port/package. regards, /k --=20 > Jesus died for your sins. Make it worth his time. KR433/KR11-RIPE -- WebMonster Community Founder -- nGENn GmbH Senior Techie http://www.webmonster.de/ -- ftp://ftp.webmonster.de/ -- http://www.ngenn.n= et/ GnuPG 0x2964BF46 2001-03-15 42F9 9FFF 50D4 2F38 DBEE DF22 3340 4F4E 2964 B= F46 My mail is GnuPG signed -- Unsigned ones are bogus -- http://www.gnupg.org/ Please do not remove my address from To: and Cc: fields in mailing lists. 1= 0x --Bn2rw/3z4jIqBvZU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8oOmBM0BPTilkv0YRAo7eAJsFVIEHjGDn6DOS+GUzxRWIELJqBQCgkm7Z D+mSayBFddm+6+411p3/hl0= =Cg01 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Bn2rw/3z4jIqBvZU-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020326223457.B25907>