This question is inspired by the recent discussion on nail-devel mailing list
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=nail-devel as well as a private discussion Martin, William, and me had, which you can read below. The only reason I personally chose to use nail over mail from the base of OpenBSD is MIME as well as IMAP/POP support. I suspect this is the case with most nail users. IMAP/POP support is not really a big deal and should not be part of the base. It could be easily achieved by fdm for instance http://fdm.sourceforge.net/ On another hand OpenBSD version of mail lacks MIME support which is unfortunately must for me. Yes, I know that MIME functionality can be achieved by MetaMail or Mpack. However it has been brought to my attention that NetBSD version of mail does have such a support. I compared the source files for NetBSD version of mail with OpenBSD version of mail. It appears that MIME functionality has been added to NetBSD mail about two years ago by adding 7 source and 7 header files. The other files look very similar at least in names. How difficult would be to "port" this functionality from NetBSD version of mail? I guess that this is really the question for Theo and Damien who have the most of recent CVS commits to mail. I apologize for this noise but I am really curios. Best, Predrag -------- Original Message -------- From: William Yodlowsky <will...@openbsd.org> To: Predrag Punosevac <punoseva...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [nail-devel] Request II for 12.5 release Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:15:15 -0400 On 22 June 2010 at 16:04, Predrag Punosevac <punoseva...@gmail.com> wrote: > Martin Neitzel <neit...@gaertner.de> wrote: > > > Hi Predrag! > > > > [This reply comes a lttle belated and refers actually to a previous > > email of yours. This is just a small suggestion.] > > > > If you are doing the courtesy service of providing nail-tar-balls, > > I recommend to go the whole mile and provide the diffs between the > > versions, too. (I.e., the output from "cvs patch -u -r R12_3 -r R12_4 ." > > etc.) > > > > This is something I greatly miss in the sendmail releases. Not so much > > for bandwith reasons, but for a quick review what changed and swift > > security auditing. Creating the diff locally is always possible but a > > nuisance, in particular if I have already local mods. > > Hi Martin, > > I am on the same page with you. The thing is that the official nail port > maintainer is William Yodlowsky. Will is really cool guy but also very Thanks. > busy so I pushed him in the past buy sending diff for 12.4 release for > example. I am going to proceed in the same fashion. I was planning to > install current on one of the machines and do exactly what you suggested > hopping that he will pick up peaces at po...@openbsd and commit the > port. No worries, I lurk on nail-devel. I can look at adding patches to bring the port up to nail's current code, but I was hoping (and waiting) for Gunnar to release 12.5. I wrote about keeping a tarball of nail when I responded in private mail to him, back when the thread started. He didn't care to respond. Admittedly, his lack of action on fixing bugs and nail's crashes on well-formed attachments has led to nail not being my MUA of choice for some time now, so I didn't track changes very closely. I also didn't realize people were using it... > There is also another issue. OpenBSD will soon be free of Sendmail. > There are two options. One is to alter Makefile so that nail uses > native OpenSMTPd. Another one is to introduce Sendmail-static dependency > (Sendmail-static is a small statically linked Sendmail used in the > chroot environment for instance to deliver massages from your web-server) /usr/sbin/sendmail is ingrained in many places. Even if Sendmail were to be removed, I find it difficult to believe there would be no Sendmail-like message submission.
