Re: License and adopting software

[Chris H]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:24:53 +0800 "blubee blubeeme"  said


On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Jonathan Chen  wrote:

> On 11 December 2017 at 17:17, blubee blubeeme  wrote:
> > I like some old software that's <= GPL2 but it seems like the original
> > developer is not and have not done any work on the software sine mid
> 2000.
> >
> > I'd like to pick up the project, fix bugs BUT i'd like to migrate from
> GPL
> > to BSD license.
> >
> > How does one go about doing that? I have seen the GPL code but it could
> be
> > re-written how would that affect me re-writing the code with a new copy
> > center license?
>
> You basically have to get the original author to reassign copyright to
> you; after which you can do whatever you like to it. If you're basing
> your new work on the original work, you have to respect the LICENCE
> that it came with.

It's also worth noting; you can dual-license it. That is:
their code == their license
your code (additions) == your license
At some point ( < 50% ?) their code becomes a little less relevant, and it's
questionable as to the pertinence/relevance of their (GPL) license. But theirs
much rebuttal on that point. I'd (personally) consider it irrelevant at that
point, *especially* when it's suffering bit rot, and the original author is
unresponsive. But in the end, it's up to you to make that decision/choice. :-)
Oh, and I'm *not* advocating jacking/stealing any ones code. Just debating the
extent of the GPL license.

--Chris

> --
> Jonathan Chen 
>
There has been no update since 2005 and I've tried many times this year to
get in touch w/ the original author. There has been no response, that's why
I am asking here.



___
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"

Re: make reinstall does not work

[Franco Fichtner]

> On 11. Dec 2017, at 7:34 AM, Kurt Jaeger  wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
>> On Sunday, 10 December 2017 at 20:32:38 +0100, Walter Schwarzenfeld wrote:
>>> Look at the link in Shawn Webb's post:
>>> 
>>> bapt (Baptisse Daroussin) wrote
>>> 
>>>  *bapt  * replied Nov 16, 2017
>>>  
>>> 
>> 
>> You should have quoted that in your reply.  And are we really now
>> using github as the primary repository?
> 
> pkg is developed on github, because as a tool it is supposed
> to be portable to other unix-like OS variants.
> 
> So the link to github is the link to upstream.

Now that that is sorted, can somebody please fix Mk/bsd.port.mk,
because it says, and probably has said for years...

# reinstall - Install the results of a build, ignoring "already 
installed" flag.

And the whole premise of "reinstall" being used as "deinstall reinstall"
in the face of "deinstall install" is just silly, either by deleting
the reinstall target or making it a composite target of deinstall + install
to not break existing tools / workflows.

It's worrisome that such latent fixes are not considered bugs, more so that
the inner workings of bsd.port.mk do not reflect that shift in "expected
behaviour" in any way; and even more so that long discussions are ongoing
where non-committers bring up issues and nobody with a commit bit cares to
even ask what could be wrong.


Cheers,
Franco
___
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"

Re: make reinstall does not work

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> On Sunday, 10 December 2017 at 20:32:38 +0100, Walter Schwarzenfeld wrote:
> > Look at the link in Shawn Webb's post:
> >
> > bapt (Baptisse Daroussin) wrote
> >
> >   *bapt  * replied Nov 16, 2017
> >   
> > 
> 
> You should have quoted that in your reply.  And are we really now
> using github as the primary repository?

pkg is developed on github, because as a tool it is supposed
to be portable to other unix-like OS variants.

So the link to github is the link to upstream.

-- 
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 3 years to go !
___
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"

Re: make reinstall does not work

[Kevin Oberman]

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey 
wrote:

> On Sunday, 10 December 2017 at 20:32:38 +0100, Walter Schwarzenfeld wrote:
> > Look at the link in Shawn Webb's post:
> >
> > bapt (Baptisse Daroussin) wrote
> >
> >   *bapt  * replied Nov 16, 2017
> >    7991c49665419916210ad589d4a85fd2a7f58b37#commitcomment-25649084>
>
> You should have quoted that in your reply.  And are we really now
> using github as the primary repository?
>
> > because it should have always been like that, the real
> > reinstallation was make deinstall reinstall, the fact one needs not
> > to run deinstall first was a bug introduced very very long ago
>
> This doesn't make much sense to me.  If I do a make deinstall, the
> package is gone.  Then all I need is a make install, and that does,
> indeed, work.  make reinstall by itself also used to work.  I'll go
> with the others and assume that this was a transient bug.
>
> Greg
> --
> Sent from my desktop computer.
> Finger g...@freebsd.org for PGP public key.
> See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
> This message is digitally signed.  If your Microsoft mail program
> reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA
>

interesting! I know that the procedure back in the pre-portupgrade days was
make, make deinstall, make reinstall, make clean. I looked at the code back
then and reinstall did different things to the old, pre-pkgng, ports DB
than install. I don't recall the details, but they are probably in the
ancient parts of the svn repo.

That said, the current version of reinstall clearly could failed in an ugly
way as it does not ever uninstall the old port, just installs the new one
which could easily leave any files that is no longer a part of the port in
the $LOCALDIR. Not good! What is needed is to make the reinstall target
properly handle the error of reinstalling a port that is still installed.
"Error 70" is really not a good message,
___
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"

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

[Matthias Apitz]

On Monday, 11 December 2017 04:56:04 CET, Warren Block  
wrote:

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, Matthias Apitz wrote:

El día viernes, diciembre 08, 2017 a las 03:13:02p. m. -0700, 
Warren Block escribió:



Hmm, why -d ${USER} if this is already known who I am from the
~/.forward file location?


Because as a sysadmin, then you can copy it to another user without
having to edit it each time.


Hmm, and why the sysadmin has to put in each copy the '-d ${USER}' when
he/she puts the copy in the ~/.forward file of the USER?


Because it's a per-user setting?  I don't know for a fact, but that's 
how I'd do it: make the solution as general as possible.


Warren, you have not got my point: Why specfying '-d ${USER}' is required 
in a per user file in its HOME?




--
Sent from my Ubuntu phone
http://www.unixarea.de/
___
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"

Re: License and adopting software

[Greg 'groggy' Lehey]

On Monday, 11 December 2017 at 12:24:53 +0800, blubee blubeeme wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Jonathan Chen  wrote:
>
>> On 11 December 2017 at 17:17, blubee blubeeme  wrote:
>>> I like some old software that's <= GPL2 but it seems like the
>>> original developer is not and have not done any work on the
>>> software sine mid 2000.
>>>
>>> I'd like to pick up the project, fix bugs BUT i'd like to migrate
>>> from GPL to BSD license.
>>>
>>> How does one go about doing that? I have seen the GPL code but it
>>> could be re-written how would that affect me re-writing the code
>>> with a new copy center license?

If you rewrite the code from scratch, you can apply any license you
like, as long as you don't copy *any* of the code.  Determination of
whether you have done so or not is tricky, and you can end up creating
bike sheds.

>> You basically have to get the original author to reassign copyright
>> to you; after which you can do whatever you like to it. If you're
>> basing your new work on the original work, you have to respect the
>> LICENCE that it came with.
>>
> There has been no update since 2005 and I've tried many times this year to
> get in touch w/ the original author. There has been no response, that's why
> I am asking here.

Unfortunately, without the agreement of all parties who have
contributed to the software, you can't change the license.  Is GPL
such a big deal?

Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
Finger g...@freebsd.org for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed.  If your Microsoft mail program
reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: License and adopting software

[blubee blubeeme]

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Jonathan Chen  wrote:

> On 11 December 2017 at 17:17, blubee blubeeme  wrote:
> > I like some old software that's <= GPL2 but it seems like the original
> > developer is not and have not done any work on the software sine mid
> 2000.
> >
> > I'd like to pick up the project, fix bugs BUT i'd like to migrate from
> GPL
> > to BSD license.
> >
> > How does one go about doing that? I have seen the GPL code but it could
> be
> > re-written how would that affect me re-writing the code with a new copy
> > center license?
>
> You basically have to get the original author to reassign copyright to
> you; after which you can do whatever you like to it. If you're basing
> your new work on the original work, you have to respect the LICENCE
> that it came with.
> --
> Jonathan Chen 
>
There has been no update since 2005 and I've tried many times this year to
get in touch w/ the original author. There has been no response, that's why
I am asking here.
___
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"

Re: License and adopting software

[Jonathan Chen]

On 11 December 2017 at 17:17, blubee blubeeme  wrote:
> I like some old software that's <= GPL2 but it seems like the original
> developer is not and have not done any work on the software sine mid 2000.
>
> I'd like to pick up the project, fix bugs BUT i'd like to migrate from GPL
> to BSD license.
>
> How does one go about doing that? I have seen the GPL code but it could be
> re-written how would that affect me re-writing the code with a new copy
> center license?

You basically have to get the original author to reassign copyright to
you; after which you can do whatever you like to it. If you're basing
your new work on the original work, you have to respect the LICENCE
that it came with.
-- 
Jonathan Chen 
___
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"

License and adopting software

[blubee blubeeme]

I like some old software that's <= GPL2 but it seems like the original
developer is not and have not done any work on the software sine mid 2000.

I'd like to pick up the project, fix bugs BUT i'd like to migrate from GPL
to BSD license.

How does one go about doing that? I have seen the GPL code but it could be
re-written how would that affect me re-writing the code with a new copy
center license?
___
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"

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

[Warren Block]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, Matthias Apitz wrote:


El día viernes, diciembre 08, 2017 a las 03:13:02p. m. -0700, Warren Block 
escribió:


Hmm, why -d ${USER} if this is already known who I am from the
~/.forward file location?


Because as a sysadmin, then you can copy it to another user without
having to edit it each time.


Hmm, and why the sysadmin has to put in each copy the '-d ${USER}' when
he/she puts the copy in the ~/.forward file of the USER?


Because it's a per-user setting?  I don't know for a fact, but that's 
how I'd do it: make the solution as general as possible.

___
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"

RE: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

[Thomas Mueller]

from Carmel NY:

> On Sunday, December 10, 2017 4:18 PM, RW wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 10:10:30 -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > > 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.

> > This is actually an argument for taking sendmail out of the base system.
> > If you need to install dropmail or procmail as a package you might just as 
> > well
> > install an MTA in the same way.

> IMHO, I think that "postfix" should be the base MTA. It is far easier to 
> configure, it is rock solid
> and the Postfix forum and documentation are superb. Plus, Dovecot integrates 
> with it seamlessly.

NetBSD did that some time ago (made postfix the default MTA).

If sendmail is dropped from FreeBSD base, FreeBSD users who want sendmail can 
install from ports and get the real thing instead of a reduced version.

Yes, my /etc/src.conf includes the line

WITHOUT_SENDMAIL=yes

Tom

___
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"

Doc update for java/jdk8-doc

[Jonathan Chen]

Hi,

Any committer willing to review and commit the java/jdk8-doc PR:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223172

It's been on the queue for almost 2 months now.

Cheers.
-- 
Jonathan Chen 
___
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"

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

[Chris H]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:54:54 -0700 "Adam Weinberger"  said


> On 8 Dec, 2017, at 20:11, Chris H  wrote:
>
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 02:59:28 +0100 "Kurt Jaeger"  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"

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

[Chris H]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:49:02 -0700 "Adam Weinberger"  said

> On 10 Dec, 2017, at 10:11, Steve Kargl   
> wrote:

>
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 01:21:13PM +, 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.

Hi Steve,

I agree with you about the merits of FreeBSD providing a complete system  
out-of-the-box. But of all the mail servers out there, sendmail is the most 

archaic and arcane. Sendmail is used primarily by people who are intimately 

familiar with it over a long history, and simply isn’t a great choice for 

people getting into mail servers. I’d rather see sendmail installable  
through ports, and replaced in base with a better solution. Sendmail is too 

difficult to configure correctly; we should keep it trivial to install  
(i.e. ports) for those who prefer it, but it shouldn’t be our primary  
recommendation for users looking for a new MTA.


DMA is a phenomenal program and is totally sufficient for a large  
percentage of our user-base. I wasn’t aware of the lack of .forward  
support, and I completely agree that that’s a very detrimental omission.


# Adam

OK I'm puzzled a bit. FreeBSD' motto has always been:
FreeBSD
The power to serve!

but many of the proposed, and recent changes/removals end up more like:
FreeBSD
I's castrated!

IOW
Why the big push to eliminate perhaps it's biggest attributes. FreeBSD
has always been a *server* out-of-the-box. This should never change.
You need something other than a server? You can install almost every
other OS/distro. Let's also not forget, that if you need a FreeBSD
/desktop/ one need only look at the fork to accomplish just that
http://www.desktopbsd.net/
Want to produce a FreeBSD desktop from the FreeBSD source?
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/x11-wm.html
from the handbook. There's also much documentation on all the other
possibilities regarding more lightweight alternatives to the
applications installed in $BASE.

You don't want Sendmail installed by/as default? FreeBSD *already*
provides that option in src.conf(5):
WITHOUT_SENDMAIL=true
and a myriad of other possibilities -- including the addition of
things from ports(7)!
Please, let's not attempt to dilute FreeBSD' biggest strengths/
value anymore that has already been done. FreeBSD' strongest
attribute is it's being quite possibly, the best server installation
out-of-the-box -- certainly the closest POSIX server out-of-the-box.
Why remove it's best selling point/attribute?

--Chris


___
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"

Re: make reinstall does not work

[Greg 'groggy' Lehey]

On Sunday, 10 December 2017 at 20:32:38 +0100, Walter Schwarzenfeld wrote:
> Look at the link in Shawn Webb's post:
>
> bapt (Baptisse Daroussin) wrote
>
>   *bapt  * replied Nov 16, 2017
>   
> 

You should have quoted that in your reply.  And are we really now
using github as the primary repository?

> because it should have always been like that, the real
> reinstallation was make deinstall reinstall, the fact one needs not
> to run deinstall first was a bug introduced very very long ago

This doesn't make much sense to me.  If I do a make deinstall, the
package is gone.  Then all I need is a make install, and that does,
indeed, work.  make reinstall by itself also used to work.  I'll go
with the others and assume that this was a transient bug.

Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
Finger g...@freebsd.org for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed.  If your Microsoft mail program
reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Matthieu Volat]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 22:33:25 +0100
Stefan Esser  wrote:

> Am 10.12.17 um 18:47 schrieb Matthieu Volat:
> > They do... but only if you commit and push something (even if it's only
> > a personnal clone). If you just keep the changes on your computer, there's
> > nothing.  
> The GitHub master version has changes, that are not yet in any release.

As someone involved in some projects, I do understand the differences between 
working trees and releases, this was specifically about helping developpement 
by being more communicative about it.

There's nothing in the commit tree 
() nor the networkd 
() as of now regarding this 
issue. I don't know for others, but this has led me to invest some time not 
knowing this was duplicate work.

> 
> This is irrelevant as long as FLAVOR support is missing in portmaster,
> since there is no version that fully supports flavors, right now.

Please understand I am not asking for a working release, I'm asking for a more 
transparent developpement process that would allow other people to more easily 
follow, familiarize themselves with and help in portmaster development...

> 
> > As much as I am defiant of github on certain aspects, I've found in quite
> > some occasion the discussion/comment system around pull requests quite 
> > nice.  
> 
> I'm working in FLAVOR support and I have a version that correctly builds
> the Python ports, that have been converted.
> 
> But I'm currently trying to understand, where the information that the
> ports is to be re-installed, gets lost. Debugging shell scripts is a lot
> of work, since you cannot single step through them. Portmaster does call
> itself recursively, which further complicates understanding and tracing
> the execution. (Besides, portmaster is a main program of 4300+ lines with
> functions sprinkled throughout the code. I have a local version, which
> breaks this large main program in named subroutines, which makes it much
> easier to understand the logic flow, but hides the actual changes when
> creating diffs. I have backported the FLAVOR changes to a portmaster
> version without those subroutines, to get the minimal functional patch,
> but now I'm fighting with the install vs. upgrade distinction being lost.)

You can however set the execution trace argument to produce a full log. I was 
under the impression that when encountering package@flavor, splitting was 
needed in a few places to match the port directory and then simply add 
-DFLAVOR=value to the MAKEFLAGS.

> 
> I can send you the current version in private mail (I do not want to spam
> the mail-list with a 120k+ shell script).

This is exactly why I thought a WIP branch or something of the like would be 
useful, unless you want to proceed alone without any feedback. But then again, 
I posted my own (naive) approach at the issue and it did not seems to provoke 
any feedback, so maybe I was a bit too much hopeful.





pgpxJRx4uqwwf.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

[Dave Horsfall]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017, Adam Weinberger wrote:

DMA is a phenomenal program and is totally sufficient for a large 
percentage of our user-base. I wasn’t aware of the lack of .forward 
support, and I completely agree that that’s a very detrimental omission.


What about its spam filtering, such as /etc/mail/access and DNSBLs etc?

(I hope it's a coincidence that its name is also the same as the pro-spam 
Direct Marketing Association...)


--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU)  "Those who don't understand security will suffer."
___
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"

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

[Adam Weinberger]

On 8 Dec, 2017, at 20:11, Chris H  wrote:

On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 02:59:28 +0100 "Kurt Jaeger"  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!


# Adam


--
Adam Weinberger
ad...@adamw.org
http://www.adamw.org

___
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"

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

[Adam Weinberger]

On 10 Dec, 2017, at 10:11, Steve Kargl   
wrote:


On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 01:21:13PM +, 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.


Hi Steve,

I agree with you about the merits of FreeBSD providing a complete system  
out-of-the-box. But of all the mail servers out there, sendmail is the most  
archaic and arcane. Sendmail is used primarily by people who are intimately  
familiar with it over a long history, and simply isn’t a great choice for  
people getting into mail servers. I’d rather see sendmail installable  
through ports, and replaced in base with a better solution. Sendmail is too  
difficult to configure correctly; we should keep it trivial to install  
(i.e. ports) for those who prefer it, but it shouldn’t be our primary  
recommendation for users looking for a new MTA.


DMA is a phenomenal program and is totally sufficient for a large  
percentage of our user-base. I wasn’t aware of the lack of .forward  
support, and I completely agree that that’s a very detrimental omission.


# Adam


--
Adam Weinberger
ad...@adamw.org
http://www.adamw.org

___
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"

RE: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

[Carmel NY]

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 4:18 PM, RW wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 10:10:30 -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> This is actually an argument for taking sendmail out of the base system.
> If you need to install dropmail or procmail as a package you might just as 
> well
> install an MTA in the same way.

IMHO, I think that "postfix" should be the base MTA. It is far easier to 
configure, it is rock solid
and the Postfix forum and documentation are superb. Plus, Dovecot integrates 
with it seamlessly.

-- 
Carmel


pgpleBOSqAB08.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Stefan Esser]

Am 10.12.17 um 18:47 schrieb Matthieu Volat:
> They do... but only if you commit and push something (even if it's only
> a personnal clone). If you just keep the changes on your computer, there's
> nothing.
The GitHub master version has changes, that are not yet in any release.

This is irrelevant as long as FLAVOR support is missing in portmaster,
since there is no version that fully supports flavors, right now.

> As much as I am defiant of github on certain aspects, I've found in quite
> some occasion the discussion/comment system around pull requests quite nice.

I'm working in FLAVOR support and I have a version that correctly builds
the Python ports, that have been converted.

But I'm currently trying to understand, where the information that the
ports is to be re-installed, gets lost. Debugging shell scripts is a lot
of work, since you cannot single step through them. Portmaster does call
itself recursively, which further complicates understanding and tracing
the execution. (Besides, portmaster is a main program of 4300+ lines with
functions sprinkled throughout the code. I have a local version, which
breaks this large main program in named subroutines, which makes it much
easier to understand the logic flow, but hides the actual changes when
creating diffs. I have backported the FLAVOR changes to a portmaster
version without those subroutines, to get the minimal functional patch,
but now I'm fighting with the install vs. upgrade distinction being lost.)

I can send you the current version in private mail (I do not want to spam
the mail-list with a 120k+ shell script).

Regards, STefan
___
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"

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

[RW via freebsd-ports]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 10:10:30 -0800
Kevin Oberman wrote:


> 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.

This is actually an argument for taking sendmail out of the base system.
If you need to install dropmail or procmail as a package you might
just as well install an MTA in the same way. 
___
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"

Re: Linux ports tutorial? WPS Office

[Pedro Giffuni]

On 12/10/17 14:55, Eugene Grosbein wrote:

11.12.2017 2:22, Pedro Giffuni пишет:

Hello guys;

I would like to attempt a port for WPS Office (AKA Kingsoft Office):

http://wps-community.org/

Are there guidelines for linux ports? I couldn't find much details in the 
handbook.

In particular, how do you handle when the pkg-plist is different for i386 and 
amd64?

Some ports use pkg-plist.${ARCH}  but I don't know how those work.

Just have "USES=linux", "USE_LINUX_RPM=yes" and make these two files 
pkg-plist.i386 and pkg-plist.amd64
and they are used automatically. Or you could duplicate a magic from 
/ports/Mk/Uses/linux.mk in your Makefile:

PLIST?= ${PKGDIR}/pkg-plist.${LINUX_ARCH:S/x86_64/amd64/}

Thanks, this is a good starting point.

For details, read Porter's Handbook: 
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/


Pedro.
___
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"

Re: Flavor part of package origin?

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> Shouldn't the FLAVOR be part of the package origin?
> 
> $ pkg info -o '*setuptools*'
> py27-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py-setuptools
> py36-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py-setuptools

Yes, but it seems this works:

$ pkg info -o '*setuptools*'
py27-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py27-setuptools
py34-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py34-setuptools
py35-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py35-setuptools
py36-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py36-setuptools

with pkg 1.10.99.5

-- 
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 3 years to go !
___
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"

Re: Linux ports tutorial? WPS Office

[blubee blubeeme]

The first step would be to take a look at the source code the .tar file and
see a list of dependencies, then check to see if those dependencies already
have ports in FreeBSD ports tree.

What are the dependencies described in the docs for that office suite?

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Eugene Grosbein  wrote:

> 11.12.2017 2:22, Pedro Giffuni пишет:
> > Hello guys;
> >
> > I would like to attempt a port for WPS Office (AKA Kingsoft Office):
> >
> > http://wps-community.org/
> >
> > Are there guidelines for linux ports? I couldn't find much details in
> the handbook.
> >
> > In particular, how do you handle when the pkg-plist is different for
> i386 and amd64?
> >
> > Some ports use pkg-plist.${ARCH}  but I don't know how those work.
>
> Just have "USES=linux", "USE_LINUX_RPM=yes" and make these two files
> pkg-plist.i386 and pkg-plist.amd64
> and they are used automatically. Or you could duplicate a magic from
> /ports/Mk/Uses/linux.mk in your Makefile:
>
> PLIST?= ${PKGDIR}/pkg-plist.${LINUX_ARCH:S/x86_64/amd64/}
>
> For details, read Porter's Handbook: https://www.freebsd.org/doc/
> en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/
>
> ___
> 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"
>
___
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"

Re: Linux ports tutorial? WPS Office

[Eugene Grosbein]

11.12.2017 2:22, Pedro Giffuni пишет:
> Hello guys;
> 
> I would like to attempt a port for WPS Office (AKA Kingsoft Office):
> 
> http://wps-community.org/
> 
> Are there guidelines for linux ports? I couldn't find much details in the 
> handbook.
> 
> In particular, how do you handle when the pkg-plist is different for i386 and 
> amd64?
> 
> Some ports use pkg-plist.${ARCH}  but I don't know how those work.

Just have "USES=linux", "USE_LINUX_RPM=yes" and make these two files 
pkg-plist.i386 and pkg-plist.amd64
and they are used automatically. Or you could duplicate a magic from 
/ports/Mk/Uses/linux.mk in your Makefile:

PLIST?= ${PKGDIR}/pkg-plist.${LINUX_ARCH:S/x86_64/amd64/}

For details, read Porter's Handbook: 
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/

___
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"

Re: make reinstall does not work

[Walter Schwarzenfeld]

Look at the link in Shawn Webb's post:

bapt (Baptisse Daroussin) wrote


 *bapt  * replied Nov 16, 2017
 



because it should have always been like that, the real reinstallation 
was make deinstall reinstall, the fact one needs not to run deinstall 
first was a bug introduced very very long ago


___
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"

Linux ports tutorial? WPS Office

[Pedro Giffuni]

Hello guys;

I would like to attempt a port for WPS Office (AKA Kingsoft Office):

http://wps-community.org/

Are there guidelines for linux ports? I couldn't find much details in 
the handbook.


In particular, how do you handle when the pkg-plist is different for 
i386 and amd64?


Some ports use pkg-plist.${ARCH}  but I don't know how those work.

Pedro.

___
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"

Flavor part of package origin?

[Christian Weisgerber]

Shouldn't the FLAVOR be part of the package origin?

$ pkg info -o '*setuptools*'
py27-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py-setuptools
py36-setuptools-36.5.0 devel/py-setuptools

(pkg-1.10.3_1)

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber  na...@mips.inka.de
___
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"

Re: make reinstall does not work

[Franco Fichtner]

> On 10. Dec 2017, at 6:59 PM, Kevin Oberman  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey 
> wrote:
> 
>> On Saturday,  9 December 2017 at 12:04:02 +0100, Walter Schwarzenfeld
>> wrote:
>>> Thanks, this explains and solved the problem.
>> 
>> What?  And how?
>> 
>> Greg
>> 
> 
> Good question. "make reinstall" is, indeed, broken. I have been looking at
> bsd.ports.mk and reinstall simply deletes the .install_done and
> .package_done files from the work directory and than attempts to do a "make
> -DFORCE_PKG_REGISTER install" and that used to work.

>From what I saw, it "still works" on pkg 1.10.1, so 1.10.2 or 1.10.3
changed this, which--for stability reasons--it should probably not
have done.


Cheers,
Franco
___
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"

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

[Kevin Oberman]

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Steve Kargl <
s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 01:21:13PM +, 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: rkober...@gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683
___
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"

Re: The ports@ list is now subscriber-post only

[Kevin Oberman]

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 1:59 AM, Thomas Mueller  wrote:

> > The po...@freebsd.org (aka freebsd-ports@) mailing list now requires
> you to
> > subscribe to the list before posting. This brings us two important
> benefits:
>
> > * This should cut back tremendously on spam coming through the list.
>
> > * Users are more likely to find better answers to their questions: The
> first
> > three times a question is asked, it gets detailed replies. The fourth
> through
> > nth times usually get a one sentence reply.
>
> > This ONLY affects sending messages to the list. It does NOT affect:
> > - Receiving messages or replies
> > - Viewing the archives (https://www.freebsd.org/
> community/mailinglists.html)
> > - Searching the archives
>
> > If you have any questions about this, don't hesitate to ask!
>
> # Adam
>
>
> > Adam Weinberger
>
> Why only the freebsd-ports mailing list and no others?
>
> Other FreeBSD mailing lists get spam, and I thought freebsd-questions was
> the biggest target for spam.
>
> NetBSD mailing lista are also spam targets.
>
> Tom
>

While I don't have a list, when I changes my default "From:" address a
while back, i discovered that several FreeBSD lists are subscriber-only as
my posts started getting responses that my message was being held as I was
not a subscriber to the list.
--
Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer
E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683
___
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"

Re: make reinstall does not work

[Kevin Oberman]

On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey 
wrote:

> On Saturday,  9 December 2017 at 12:04:02 +0100, Walter Schwarzenfeld
> wrote:
> > Thanks, this explains and solved the problem.
>
> What?  And how?
>
> Greg
>

Good question. "make reinstall" is, indeed, broken. I have been looking at
bsd.ports.mk and reinstall simply deletes the .install_done and
.package_done files from the work directory and than attempts to do a "make
-DFORCE_PKG_REGISTER install" and that used to work.

Now the install target is looking at the pkgdb and finding that the package
is already installed, even with the FORCE_PKG_REGISTER, throws an error
that is not handled. I think this is a bug as it is simply not properly
handled. I'm not sufficiently good at make scripting to be sure of this,
but that appears to be what going on. I am not sure if this can be safely
fixed or if the 'reinstall' target should be removed.

I should also note that reinstall has changed drastically since pkgng came
on the scene, so my prior look at this was totally obsolete. Sorry.
--
Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer
E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683
___
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"

Re: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Matthieu Volat]

On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 02:23:10 -0800
"Chris H"  wrote:

> On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 10:25:17 +0100 "Matthieu Volat"  said
> 
> > On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 14:18:28 +0100
> > Baptiste Daroussin  wrote:
> >   
> > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 02:13:09PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:  
> > > > Quoting Baptiste Daroussin  (from Thu, 7 Dec 2017  
> > > 14:54:27  
> > > > +0100):
> > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 02:49:45PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:  
> > > > >   
> > > > 
> > > > > > Alternatively, how would a FreeBSD committer like Stefan or
> > > > > > Torsten or me or whoever gain write access to
> > > > > > https://github.com/freebsd/portmaster/ so get some progress in
> > > > > > the official portmaster location and create a new release
> > > > > > (sorry my ignorance for github and how it works, I'm used to
> > > > > > CVS/SVN workflows)?
> > > > > 
> > > > > They just need to ask git admins to get access, I have already asked
> > > > > Stefan (not
> > > > > reply yet)
> > > > > 
> > > > > They can also ask me directly if they want given I am part of the git 
> > > > >  
> > > admins
> > > > 
> > > > And I see that I'm already part of the FreeBSD organisation on github, 
> > > > so  
> > > I  
> > > > should have access. So... currently portmaster is wild-wild-west  
> > > territory?  
> > > > No real owner, anyone willing to fix/improve is free to do so, and it's 
> > > > up
> > > > to each individual to wear his fireproof-suite (after flavours is 
> > > > settled  
> > > I  
> > > > would be interested to have a look at the local packages installation 
> > > > pull
> > > > request)?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > The official maintainer is tz@ for now, he just handed the maintainership 
> > > to
> > > se@
> > > 
> > > As for push access for now, only git-admin (which I am part of) and 
> > > bdrewery
> > > (who use to maintain portmaster) have access. I'll be glad to give push 
> > > acces
> > > to
> > > more people.
> > > 
> > > For now I have pushed patches from Stefan in the repo (not the flavor
> > > support
> > > but the preliminary to it)
> > > 
> > > Best regards,
> > > Bapt  
> > 
> > 
> > Would it be possible to have some page to track/show the changes/progress to
> > the code? For some times, we had a lot of "i'm working on it but behind
> > closed doors".
> > 
> > For that kind of tools, it would be nice to see the process of upgrading
> > portmaster (or any other tool for that matter) and get a bit more familiar
> > with the code.
> > 
> > Even a wip branch would be great to involve more people, and that way, 
> > people
> > would be a bit less in the dark, but that is just my 2 cents...  
> 
> Doesn't the GitHub activity graphs, diffs, and commit logs already provide
> this information? Or have I just misunderstood the question?
> 

They do... but only if you commit and push something (even if it's only a 
personnal clone). If you just keep the changes on your computer, there's 
nothing.

As much as I am defiant of github on certain aspects, I've found in quite some 
occasion the discussion/comment system around pull requests quite nice.

Regards,

--
Matthieu Volat 


pgperwcbvK5Dg.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

[Steve Kargl]

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 01:21:13PM +, 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
___
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"

Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check

[Matthew Seaman]

On 09/12/2017 04:12, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, Steve Kargl wrote:
> 
>> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2017-December/018712.html
>>
> 
> Well, I saw no reason to subscribe to freebsd-arch (I'm on enough lists
> as it is)...  Are there any other lists that we should be following?
> 
> I guess a suit and tie will be required soon :-(
> 
> I'm bemused by Bapt's remark that "it does not support anything an
> entreprised [sic] grade mta setup would require: ldap support for
> example"; funny, as I had it working just fine with OpenLDAP with
> hundreds of users spread over many offices in my last job, with no
> trouble at all; there's even a schema for it, FFS:
> 
>     aneurin% locate -i sendmail.schema
>     /usr/share/sendmail/cf/sendmail.schema
> 
> with all the right gear in it:
> 
>     # OID arcs for Sendmail
>     # enterprise:   1.3.6.1.4.1
>     # sendmail: enterprise.6152
> 
> WTF?  Sure as hell looks like Sendmail supports LDAP to me...
> 

Bapt's point here is that the version of sendmail in base is quite
limited since, for instance, it is not compiled with ldap client support
or various other optional features.  On the other hand, the version of
sendmail in ports can be compiled with all the different bells and
whistles enabled.

If your machine is configured as a smarthost MTA, then generally you'll
want to install one of the more fully capable MTA packages from ports --
sendmail, postfix, exim etc.

For most other setups, a machine does not need to do anything more with
e-mail than deliver locally generated mails (from cron or whatever)
either to a local mailbox or to a smarthost.

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.

Cheers,

Matthew






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: The ports@ list is now subscriber-post only

[Thomas Mueller]

> The po...@freebsd.org (aka freebsd-ports@) mailing list now requires you to
> subscribe to the list before posting. This brings us two important benefits:

> * This should cut back tremendously on spam coming through the list.

> * Users are more likely to find better answers to their questions: The first
> three times a question is asked, it gets detailed replies. The fourth through
> nth times usually get a one sentence reply.

> This ONLY affects sending messages to the list. It does NOT affect:
> - Receiving messages or replies
> - Viewing the archives (https://www.freebsd.org/community/mailinglists.html)
> - Searching the archives

> If you have any questions about this, don't hesitate to ask!

# Adam


> Adam Weinberger

Why only the freebsd-ports mailing list and no others? 

Other FreeBSD mailing lists get spam, and I thought freebsd-questions was the 
biggest target for spam.

NetBSD mailing lista are also spam targets.

Tom

___
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"