On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:54:54 -0700 "Adam Weinberger" <ad...@adamw.org> said
> On 8 Dec, 2017, at 20:11, Chris H <bsd-li...@bsdforge.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 02:59:28 +0100 "Kurt Jaeger" <li...@opsec.eu> said
>
>> Hi!
>> > > > First, there is movement afoot to remove sendmail from FreeBSD and
>> > > > replace it with dma(1).
>> > Hmm. This does not come as good news to me. I've been working on an
>> antispam
>> > system that targets the use of Sendmail,
>> If sendmail is available via ports, wouldn't that be enough ?
> Thanks for the reply, Kurt.
> Perhaps. Haven't tried it yet (means even more work). :(
> But hopefully.
> I thought all my work would have been more valuable, given that Sendmail
> was installed by default in FreeBSD. Disappointing, but perhaps still
> doable.
> Time will tell.
Hi Chris,
I’d argue that if your work loses value if sendmail is removed from base
(suggesting that users wouldn’t choose sendmail when given an option from
ports), then that suggests that sendmail isn’t the right thing to include
in base. Base should ship with the thing that we expect the majority of
users to WANT to choose.
Clearly there are many users who still prefer sendmail. Your work still has
value!
Thank you, Adam for the thoughtful reply.
I'm not arguing it's intrinsic value with Sendmail. But rather; I was
just indicating that it would be of more value to FreeBSD users, given
that that would *likely* be their MX, as Sendmail is installed so out
of the box. Meaning; Since FreeBSD has (largely) already set it up for
them, they're probably already using it, and that means more Sendmail
users *by default*. :-)
Thanks again, Adam.
--Chris
# Adam
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
