On 03-Apr-2003 Dr Daniel Flickinger wrote:
Secondly, I add the following to /etc/rc.conf:
mta_start_script= # 2917: block their startup stealth attack
sendmail_enable=NO
sendmail_outbound_enable=NO
sendmail_msp_queue_enable=NO
On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 17:08:46 -0500 (EST)
John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 03-Apr-2003 Dr Daniel Flickinger wrote:
Secondly, I add the following to /etc/rc.conf:
mta_start_script= # 2917: block their startup stealth attack
sendmail_enable=NO
Hi,
I hope that core will approve removing sendmail from FreeBSD-CURRENT.
Thank you,
Pete...
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Schultz wrote:
Hi,
I hope that core will approve removing sendmail from FreeBSD-CURRENT.
I'm pretty sure they will, just as soon as someone provides
patches to make installed base system components like sendmail
into preinstalled packages, and then steps up and makes some
other MTA
Terry Lambert wrote:
Peter Schultz wrote:
Hi,
I hope that core will approve removing sendmail from FreeBSD-CURRENT.
I'm pretty sure they will, just as soon as someone provides
patches to make installed base system components like sendmail
into preinstalled packages, and then steps up and makes
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Schultz writes:
I'm sorry for beating a dead horse.
This is the best summary so far on this subject.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Peter Schultz wrote:
Why not just have these logged by default instead? Like /var/log/daily,
and whatnot. Anyone with half a care about this stuff can easily make
their own modifications, those who don't care will never know the
difference.
Because syslog is unreliable. See BUGS section of
Terry Lambert wrote:
Because syslog is unreliable. See BUGS section of the man page.
Don't you think that if syslog is unreliable, then it should be fixed ?
If things are as you say, we have 2 problems: Sendmail gettings CERTs
every other day and an unreliable system logger. Would you rather
On 02-Apr-2003 Peter Schultz wrote:
I'm sorry for beating a dead horse. A guy and I from tcbug were just
trying to fix his postfix installation, he does not know what happened,
it just stopped working. There would not have been a problem if
sendmail wasn't tied into the system so
Don't you think that if syslog is unreliable, then it should be fixed ?
If things are as you say, we have 2 problems: Sendmail gettings CERTs
every other day and an unreliable system logger. Would you rather just
let things be as they are ?
Absolutely not! Fix the problems and they would be
John Baldwin wrote:
On 02-Apr-2003 Peter Schultz wrote:
I'm sorry for beating a dead horse. A guy and I from tcbug were just
trying to fix his postfix installation, he does not know what happened,
it just stopped working. There would not have been a problem if
sendmail wasn't tied into the
Terry Lambert wrote:
If you look over the historical cases of this discussion,
you'll see that the answer always comes down to make the
system more modular, so people can replace XXX with YYY and
quit bothering us; please send patches. 8-) 8-).
Thanks for your help on this. I've been getting so
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jens Rehsack writes:
The problem I see with that is, that even a minimalistic base install
installs things like sendmail, ppp, atm-stuff, g77 and so on.
I really think splitting the base in some sub-parts would it make much
easier to do NO_SENDMAIL on my own. So I
John Baldwin wrote:
On 02-Apr-2003 Peter Schultz wrote:
I'm sorry for beating a dead horse. A guy and I from tcbug were just
trying to fix his postfix installation, he does not know what happened,
it just stopped working. There would not have been a problem if
sendmail wasn't tied into the
On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 10:59:25 -0600
Peter Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[x] sendmail ... (default)
[ ] postfix ...
[ ] exim ...
[ ] qmail ...
[ ] none (caution: desktop users only, insecure use of syslog)
AFAIK, sendmail, postfix and none are the options presented to the
user during the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter Schultz writes:
: I hope that core will approve removing sendmail from FreeBSD-CURRENT.
Request denied.
1) you made no case for it: Everybdoy knows this is a contentious
issue, yet no reasons were given.
2) You cc'd core and a public mailing list. Don't
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 06:01:01PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote:
The problem I see with that is, that even a minimalistic base install
installs things like sendmail, ppp, atm-stuff, g77 and so on.
I would love to see the toolchain broken out into its own tarball like
NetBSD. It isn't a simple
David O'Brien wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 06:01:01PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote:
The problem I see with that is, that even a minimalistic base install
installs things like sendmail, ppp, atm-stuff, g77 and so on.
I would love to see the toolchain broken out into its own tarball like
NetBSD.
On 02-Apr-2003 Jens Rehsack wrote:
John Baldwin wrote:
On 02-Apr-2003 Peter Schultz wrote:
I'm sorry for beating a dead horse. A guy and I from tcbug were just
trying to fix his postfix installation, he does not know what happened,
it just stopped working. There would not have been a
On Wed Apr 02, 2003 at 02:29:30PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
I really think splitting the base in some sub-parts would it make much
easier to do NO_SENDMAIL on my own. So I had to remove each not required
file separately. That's no good solution.
[stepping back a bit ]
I find an
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Baldwin writes:
I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
one hand, people are always wanting to split the entire base system
up into small packages for each little piece of the base. On the
other hand, one of FreeBSD's selling points
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Maybe this page could also contain an option to show the list of
files, and maybe even a backwards option to tell which options
are involved in a particular file or directorys existence.
So, to answer you question: I like it as it is where I
On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 14:29:30 -0500 (EST)
John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
one hand, people are always wanting to split the entire base system
up into small packages for each little piece of the base. On the
other hand,
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 02:29:30PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
...
[stepping back a bit ]
I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
one hand, people are always wanting to split the entire base system
up into small packages for each little piece of the base. On
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Dan Naumov wrote:
DNOn Wed, 02 Apr 2003 14:29:30 -0500 (EST)
DNJohn Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DN
DN I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
DN one hand, people are always wanting to split the entire base system
DN up into small packages for
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 21:56:40 +0200
Wilko Bulte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 02:29:30PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
one hand, people are always wanting to split the entire base system
up into small
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 11:28:53PM +0300, Dan Naumov wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 21:56:40 +0200
Wilko Bulte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 02:29:30PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
one hand, people are
Am Mi, 2003-04-02 um 22.28 schrieb Dan Naumov:
I think being able to update just about ANYTHING, except the kernel
without the need for a reboot is one of the best features of Linux and
actual advantages it has over FreeBSD.
I see no real barriers at updating utility or library of your choice
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 10:27:04AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter Schultz writes:
: I hope that core will approve removing sendmail from FreeBSD-CURRENT.
Request denied.
1) you made no case for it: Everybdoy knows this is a contentious
issue, yet
Dan Naumov wrote:
Terry Lambert wrote:
Because syslog is unreliable. See BUGS section of the man page.
Don't you think that if syslog is unreliable, then it should be fixed ?
Sure. You should definitely fix it; you'll need to figure out
a way to know whether we've run out of mbufs, or
On 02-Apr-2003 Dan Naumov wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 21:56:40 +0200
Wilko Bulte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 02:29:30PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
one hand, people are always wanting to split the
Jens Rehsack wrote:
John Baldwin wrote:
First, core@ is not the appropriate body for that type of request.
Both current@ and arch@ are much better targets. Second, is
NO_SENDMAIL + the postfix port inadequate?
The problem I see with that is, that even a minimalistic base install
Peter Schultz wrote:
Terry Lambert wrote:
If you look over the historical cases of this discussion,
you'll see that the answer always comes down to make the
system more modular, so people can replace XXX with YYY and
quit bothering us; please send patches. 8-) 8-).
Thanks for your
Terry Lambert wrote:
Jens Rehsack wrote:
John Baldwin wrote:
First, core@ is not the appropriate body for that type of request.
Both current@ and arch@ are much better targets. Second, is
NO_SENDMAIL + the postfix port inadequate?
The problem I see with that is, that even a minimalistic base
On 2003-04-02 23:28, Dan Naumov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 21:56:40 +0200
Wilko Bulte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 02:29:30PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the
one hand, people are always wanting
John Baldwin wrote:
On 02-Apr-2003 Jens Rehsack wrote:
I really think splitting the base in some sub-parts would it make much
easier to do NO_SENDMAIL on my own. So I had to remove each not required
file separately. That's no good solution.
[stepping back a bit ]
I find an odd
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 01:29, Don wrote:
Seriously though, I _always_ replace sendmail with postfix and I have
never had a problem doing so. Other than one or two really trivial
anyway.
What problems do people run into when replacing sendmail? How many of
those problems come as a result of not
37 matches
Mail list logo
