Re: why BIND and sendmail installed by default?

2003-03-14 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On 2003-03-13 17:46, Anti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:11:48 +0200 Giorgos Keramidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: really very, *very*, basic services that a Unix machine should be ready to serve without having to go through tons of ports/packages just to install bind. why not

Re: why BIND and sendmail installed by default?

2003-03-13 Thread Anti
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:11:48 +0200 Giorgos Keramidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] really very, *very*, basic services that a Unix machine should be ready to serve without having to go through tons of ports/packages just to install bind. why not just have the package install by default so

Re: why BIND and sendmail installed by default?

2003-03-12 Thread Bill Moran
Jorge Mario G. wrote: Hi there I've seen that BIND and sendmail (till 4.7-RELEASE havent tested 5.0 yet) are installed by default my question is simple... WHY? Partly for historical reasons. Also, sendmail and BIND do more than just mail|DNS server. Sendmail is used by most local mailers for

Re: why BIND and sendmail installed by default?

2003-03-12 Thread Kirk Strauser
At 2003-03-12T15:59:03Z, Jorge Mario G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've seen that BIND and sendmail (till 4.7-RELEASE havent tested 5.0 yet) are installed by default my question is simple... WHY? Because noone's done the work of removing them. Volunteering? I see this from a end user point

Re: why BIND and sendmail installed by default?

2003-03-12 Thread Peter Elsner
To my knowledge, the default install does not install either BIND or SENDMAIL anymore. You have to select those options during the CUSTOM install process. Unless you are using the QUICK INSTALL method. Of course, the QUICK INSTALL is geared to get you started with the basics, so if you don't

Re: why BIND and sendmail installed by default?

2003-03-12 Thread Jorge Mario G.
Here I try to reply to kirk and all other guys 1. if I want to read my network status is most likely because I have server?? If I'd have a server Id configure (mail) it how I like it :) 2. for bill: I dont think there is BIND conde involved in the resolver 3. for peter: I always go with the

Re: why BIND and sendmail installed by default?

2003-03-12 Thread Mike Meyer
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jorge Mario G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed: Now I from the sys admin point of view (mine): Do I need a DNS server??? YES, but I usually grab the lastest version, and the default install does not suit to our needs... But it suits a lot of peoples needs. Do I need mail

Re: why BIND and sendmail installed by default?

2003-03-12 Thread Bill Moran
Jorge Mario G. wrote: Here I try to reply to kirk and all other guys 1. if I want to read my network status is most likely because I have server?? If I'd have a server Id configure (mail) it how I like it :) 2. for bill: I dont think there is BIND conde involved in the resolver Well, we can

Re: why BIND and sendmail installed by default?

2003-03-12 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On 2003-03-12 10:59, Jorge Mario G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi there Hello. I see that knowledgeable people have already answered this, but I'll try to put a little more detail in the lot. I've seen that BIND and sendmail (till 4.7-RELEASE havent tested 5.0 yet) are installed by default my

Re: why BIND and sendmail installed by default?

2003-03-12 Thread Jorge Mario G.
2. for bill: I dont think there is BIND conde involved in the resolver OK, BIND has nothing to do with the resolver :-) Well, we can both think about it, or you could check. 3. for peter: I always go with the CUSTOM install I think he's talking about FreeBSD 5, which I know for a fact no