On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Steve Kargl < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 01:21:13PM +0000, Matthew Seaman wrote: > > > > Hence the current sendmail in base is neither fish nor fowl: way > > overpowered for almost all installations, but with significant > > limitations for a machine providing a full-blown mail service. > > Personally I agree with his reasoning: unless the primary function of > > your FreeBSD machine is to be an MTA, you really don't need any more > > capability than to either deliver to a local mailbox, or forward all > > e-mails to a smart host. Certainly you don't need anything capable of > > receiving incoming e-mails. > > > > I disagree. FreeBSd used to pride itself on being a complete operating > system oout-of-the-box. Lately, a smaller number of developers are > moving FreeBSD to being a kernel with a bunch of add-on software. > > dma(1) does not support a .forward file and by extension vacation(1). > Without .forward, then those of use who use procmail(1) (subject of > this email thread) in .forward and by extension spamassisin are > hosed. > > Chapter 27 of the FreeBSD Handbook would need to be rewritten before > sendmail can be removed. It is assumed that sendmail is installed > with base. > > -- > Steve > Strongly agree! Support ofr some basics like .forward is really a requirement. It is used for too many "normal" mail operations including private dropmail or procmail setups as well as forwarding to a smartmail system. -- Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer E-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683 _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
