Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 13:10:47 +0200 From: freebsd.arch@clogic.com.ua To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Sendmail deprecation ? Message-ID: <eeaa550f5b9f62d56dfc17d4f0a3b64d@clogic.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <310c26e3-1818-a7de-9606-2a74c3cd84c3@freebsd.org> References: <20171206223341.iz3vj4zz2igqczy7@ivaldir.net> <tkrat.f954a4373601db49@FreeBSD.org> <0f11ca9a-c28f-6667-9509-11a1ba05ff98@freebsd.org> <98201b70579455dfa4fa58aebd3181b3@clogic.com.ua> <201712101331.vBADVcxH078614@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> <b9d170413513c0dc365e545fbd4e7009@clogic.com.ua> <CAHM0Q_P%2BShCoZby2SeXTCzzzBwHG7DCL_nrU4e2epvg2LuAW5g@mail.gmail.com> <310c26e3-1818-a7de-9606-2a74c3cd84c3@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2017-12-11 02:55, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > On 12/10/17 12:08, K. Macy wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 6:27 AM, <freebsd.arch@clogic.com.ua> wrote: >>> On 2017-12-10 15:31, Jamie Landeg-Jones wrote: >>>> freebsd.arch@clogic.com.ua wrote: >>>> >>>>> Most users don't need a sandmail in base. As example, I always >>>>> disable >>>>> sendmail and install dma for local use or postfix for mail servers. >>>>> So I >>>>> can't understand, why I need do this every time as I install new >>>>> instance of FreeBSD in 2017? >>>> >>>> There are many valid arguments for and against removal, but I'm >>>> afraid >>>> that isn't one of them. >> That's not really the question. The question is "why won't 'pkg >> install sendmail' work for users that need it?" There are two >> technical reasons for why a component is in base and two emotional / >> political. >> >> The two technical reasons are: >> 1) The system won't work without it (e.g. rc files, kill, rm, etc) > > As a sub-point, we do want the base system to be a reliable and > consistent set of things such that scripts and instructions can > reference them; one of FreeBSD's strong points is that I can write a > script targeting "FreeBSD" and know that a reasonably complete system > is going to be present and that I won't find out that, say, ping or > telnet are not installed. This expands the set of important tools much > beyond "kill" and "rm" and means we should tread very, very carefully > in terms of moving things out of the base system -- this is one of my > major general reservations about the proposed implemention of pkgbase. > > That said, sendmail is *definitely* not in that category so long as > some basic MTA is there that makes reports from periodic etc. work. > The important thing is that mail(1) work, not that it be sendmail. So > I'm 100% in favor of dropping sendmail. > -Nathan I think the situation is similar to the one that was when bind replaced with unbound/ldns. A fully featured authoritative DNS server was removed from the base system and replaced with small and secure DNS resolver. >> 2) The component is tightly coupled to the kernel (e.g. bhyve) >> >> There are of course plenty of things which fall in to both buckets: >> libc, ifconfig, etc. >> >> The two emotional reasons are: >> 1) Emotional attachment (e.g. fortune) >> 2) Inertia (rcs, sendmail, etc) >> Thanks to bapt and friends pkg "just works" for most people for most >> cases. In conclusion, further discussion needs to either a) make a >> compelling case for why either my technical points are insufficient or >> the emotional drivers are critical; or b) explain why "pkg install >> sendmail" won't work. >> >> Cheers. >> -M
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?eeaa550f5b9f62d56dfc17d4f0a3b64d>