Hi,
One of the neat things I like about 8.12.2 are the milter
facilities. Just wondering if
http://www.sendmail.org/~ca/email/patches/milter.c.8.188.p
could / would be committed to FreeBSD at some point ?
---Mike
mike One of the neat things I like about 8.12.2 are the milter
mike facilities. Just wondering if
mike http://www.sendmail.org/~ca/email/patches/milter.c.8.188.p
mike could / would be committed to FreeBSD at some point ?
We are prepping 8.12.3 for release (which includes the patch). It will
gshapiro We are prepping 8.12.3 for release (which includes the patch).
gshapiro It will be imported into FereBSD shortly after release.
After importing it into FereBSD, I'll import it into FreeBSD.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of
Yeasah Pell:
The question is
simply this: why are there large, complex, non-BSD packages in src-contrib
that are not critical to the running of many types of systems, and not
strictly a dependency of the system proper?
Because they always have been. BSD users (those who have been running
BSD
Helge Oldach([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2002.03.27 09:15:42 +:
Karsten W. Rohrbach:
Helge Oldach([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2002.03.26 23:26:57 +:
[...]
standard, well- and widely-known piece of software around. You may not
like it but both S*** and B*** are the de facto standards. Period.
no text deleted, everything quoted, not reformatted, no information
removed. please, read on.
Helge Oldach([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2002.03.27 09:36:19 +:
Yeasah Pell:
The question is
simply this: why are there large, complex, non-BSD packages in src-contrib
that are not critical to the
* Helge Oldach ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Count this my strong vote against removal of packages that are
traditionally part of the base system.
I hate sendmail with a passion. I use exim; hence it's just added
bloat sitting in my rather full /usr.
The existance of more up-to-date ports for
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 10:58:45AM +, Thomas Hurst wrote:
* Helge Oldach ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Count this my strong vote against removal of packages that are
traditionally part of the base system.
I suggest we extend the package system to include the base system; then
I can
I'm probably not one to get involved in the conversation at this point (it
seems to have gone nearly off it's topic)..
Pell Yeasah wrote:
I've noticed that there are, in fact, sendmail and bind ports -- does
anybody use them? if so, why, and do they interact poorly with their
src-contrib
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:12:24PM +, Pete French wrote:
I don't mind sendmail being the default, what I do mind is that after
every upgrade I need to find the new sendmail binary, delete it, and
point a link towards the qmail sendmail binary.
Err - mailwrapper ? I hate sendmail
Helge Oldach([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2002.03.26 23:26:57 +:
[...]
standard, well- and widely-known piece of software around. You may not
like it but both S*** and B*** are the de facto standards. Period.
they are not, but this is not the issue. it is just convenient to have
emacs in the
Karsten W. Rohrbach:
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,
Karsten W. Rohrbach:
Helge Oldach([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2002.03.26 23:26:57 +:
[...]
standard, well- and widely-known piece of software around. You may not
like it but both S*** and B*** are the de facto standards. Period.
Please quote correctly and don't falsify my words here. I am not
13 matches
Mail list logo
