Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-14 12:01:08 +1000: > On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 20:52, Roman Neuhauser wrote: > > # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-13 09:38:58 +1000: > > > > This sounds like a different issue - my suggestion was for how to avoid > > > putting sendmail into the system when you build it. > > > > not really a different issue. the OP wanted to be able to [not] > > install Sendmail, Bind etc. during the initial system setup. that's > > impossible ATM. > > Correct. However, once you have built your system and carefully removed > the bits you don't want, you are likely to be quite unhappy for an > upgrade to go and put them back. If you have run your system for a > couple of years, then an "install" is really just upgrading versions. here, the keywords are "carefully removed the bits". > > plus, replacing part of the base with a port might > > break your system. > > Making a typo in a configuration file, or deleting a library might break > your system too. The original question was not about ensuring the > integrity of a port. Breaking the system by leaving out part of the base > is a concern though. i was not talking about the port being broken per se. a perfectly fine port used in place of a base system component can break a box if additional configuration steps are not taken. > > > Admittedly, after a default install it's already there and you have to > > > go and remove it, so yes, there should be an installer option for it. > > > > and yes, that's what the OP wanted. > > And I agree. It would be much easier not to install things in the first > place. > > How much dependency is there still on these things within the base > system? What would break if someone with no *NIX experience installed > FreeBSD without Sendmail or BIND? Sendmail: no emails from periodic(8), possibly other breakage Bind: no harm at all as long as the resolver library is a separate package > > > If you need to start sendmail after DJB dnscache, you can disable it in > > > /etc/rc.conf and start it from a local script, no? > > > > yes. that means you must do more than you said originally, and what > > you said originally is not "exactly what you want". > > Are you suggesting that you should be able modify the default install > without modifiying the default configuration? That's a mighty fine > sentiment, but I can't see it happening. I'm saying that one should not be forced to hack the system by hand after replacing a part of it with a port. As it is now, you cannot e. g. install DJB's dnscache, put 127.0.0.1 in /etc/resolv.conf, and expect the base Sendmail would start without complaining. > Now, if the OP had asked "How do I prevent Sendmail from complaining > because it starts up before DJB dnscache?" then the whole scenario you > brought up would be related. However, he didn't, so I stand by my > assertion that this is a different issue, although you are correct that > what I suggested is not exactly what he wants. ok. :) however, I understood the OP's problem as "how can I make FreeBSD use Postfix to provide the mail delivery function", not "how do I replace files that are part of the base Sendmail with Postfix". > I have no intention of offending anyone, nor starting a flame war, so I > will now cease participation in this thread as it is getting off-topic. nobody's flaming anybody, but ok. -- If you cc me or remove the list(s) completely I'll most likely ignore your message.see http://www.eyrie.org./~eagle/faqs/questions.html To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail
On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 20:52, Roman Neuhauser wrote: > # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-13 09:38:58 +1000: > > This sounds like a different issue - my suggestion was for how to avoid > > putting sendmail into the system when you build it. > > not really a different issue. the OP wanted to be able to [not] > install Sendmail, Bind etc. during the initial system setup. that's > impossible ATM. Correct. However, once you have built your system and carefully removed the bits you don't want, you are likely to be quite unhappy for an upgrade to go and put them back. If you have run your system for a couple of years, then an "install" is really just upgrading versions. > plus, replacing part of the base with a port might > break your system. Making a typo in a configuration file, or deleting a library might break your system too. The original question was not about ensuring the integrity of a port. Breaking the system by leaving out part of the base is a concern though. > > Neither makes your suggestion "exactly what you want". My suggestion was taken from a scenario where you are installing, for example, 4.7 onto a box that has previously been running something like 4.3 or 4.4. > > > Admittedly, after a default install it's already there and you have to > > go and remove it, so yes, there should be an installer option for it. > > and yes, that's what the OP wanted. And I agree. It would be much easier not to install things in the first place. How much dependency is there still on these things within the base system? What would break if someone with no *NIX experience installed FreeBSD without Sendmail or BIND? If they can be taken out, all well and good. I believe dependency on Perl has been removed in version 5.0 so that it can be relegated back to the ports - and what a hue and cry there was over that, removing an "essential" tool from the base system. > > If you need to start sendmail after DJB dnscache, you can disable it in > > /etc/rc.conf and start it from a local script, no? > > yes. that means you must do more than you said originally, and what > you said originally is not "exactly what you want". Are you suggesting that you should be able modify the default install without modifiying the default configuration? That's a mighty fine sentiment, but I can't see it happening. In any case, the port should really take care of the local script if it's needed, and anything needed to be done should be included in the ubiquitous INSTALL file. Now, if the OP had asked "How do I prevent Sendmail from complaining because it starts up before DJB dnscache?" then the whole scenario you brought up would be related. However, he didn't, so I stand by my assertion that this is a different issue, although you are correct that what I suggested is not exactly what he wants. I think the real trouble is that people usually don't ask for exactly what they want, and everyone has completely different inferences of it. I have no intention of offending anyone, nor starting a flame war, so I will now cease participation in this thread as it is getting off-topic. Regards, Duncan Anker -- The information contained in this email is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose or use the information in this email in any way. Dark Blue Sea does not guarantee the integrity of any emails or attached files. The views or opinions expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Dark Blue Sea. Dark Blue Sea does not warrant that any attachments are free from viruses or other defects. You assume all liability for any loss, damage or other consequences which may arise from opening or using the attachments. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-13 09:38:58 +1000: > On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 23:03, Roman Neuhauser wrote: > > # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-07 09:52:44 +1000: > > > > > > um ... what's wrong with doing this in /etc/make.conf? > > > > > > NO_BIND = true > > > NO_OPENSSL = true > > > NO_SENDMAIL = true > > > > > > and so on. > > > > > > Seems to be exactly what you want to do > > > > No it's not. > > > > The issue is more complex: Sendmail + DJB's dnscache > > + nameserver 127.0.0.1 in /etc/resolv.conf + default means of > > starting up the software = broken system: > > This sounds like a different issue - my suggestion was for how to avoid > putting sendmail into the system when you build it. not really a different issue. the OP wanted to be able to [not] install Sendmail, Bind etc. during the initial system setup. that's impossible ATM. plus, replacing part of the base with a port might break your system. Neither makes your suggestion "exactly what you want". > Admittedly, after a default install it's already there and you have to > go and remove it, so yes, there should be an installer option for it. and yes, that's what the OP wanted. > > 1) Sendmail gets started (/etc/rc.sendmail) > > 2) Sendmail looks up it's name (queries 127.0.0.1:53) > > 3) Sendmail gets upset > > 4) dnscache gets started (/usr/local/etc/rc.d/000.svscan.sh) > > 5) too late > > If you need to start sendmail after DJB dnscache, you can disable it in > /etc/rc.conf and start it from a local script, no? yes. that means you must do more than you said originally, and what you said originally is not "exactly what you want". -- If you cc me or remove the list(s) completely I'll most likely ignore your message.see http://www.eyrie.org./~eagle/faqs/questions.html To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail
On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 23:03, Roman Neuhauser wrote: > # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-07 09:52:44 +1000: > > > > um ... what's wrong with doing this in /etc/make.conf? > > > > NO_BIND = true > > NO_OPENSSL = true > > NO_SENDMAIL = true > > > > and so on. > > > > Seems to be exactly what you want to do > > No it's not. > > The issue is more complex: Sendmail + DJB's dnscache > + nameserver 127.0.0.1 in /etc/resolv.conf + default means of > starting up the software = broken system: This sounds like a different issue - my suggestion was for how to avoid putting sendmail into the system when you build it. Admittedly, after a default install it's already there and you have to go and remove it, so yes, there should be an installer option for it. > > 1) Sendmail gets started (/etc/rc.sendmail) > 2) Sendmail looks up it's name (queries 127.0.0.1:53) > 3) Sendmail gets upset > 4) dnscache gets started (/usr/local/etc/rc.d/000.svscan.sh) > 5) too late If you need to start sendmail after DJB dnscache, you can disable it in /etc/rc.conf and start it from a local script, no? -- The information contained in this email is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose or use the information in this email in any way. Dark Blue Sea does not guarantee the integrity of any emails or attached files. The views or opinions expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Dark Blue Sea. Dark Blue Sea does not warrant that any attachments are free from viruses or other defects. You assume all liability for any loss, damage or other consequences which may arise from opening or using the attachments. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-07 09:52:44 +1000: > On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 00:42, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > > Daniel Goepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > So mx1.freebsd.org itself runs Postfix, but yet, sendmail is still so > > > embedded in FreeBSD that it's almost imposible to get cleaned out. When > > > are they going to make the FreeBSD install configurable enough to not have > > > to include sendmail, bind, openssl, etc? I choose to either install these > > > apps as ports, or not at all. > > > > > > Is there a way to break down the install, and just get a bare bare bare > > > bones install of just base, crypto and man pages, like the install says > > > it's going to do? I can't imagine this would be too hard to do! > > > > Then do it. If it works, I doubt there will be much trouble getting > > it accepted into the system. > > um ... what's wrong with doing this in /etc/make.conf? > > NO_BIND = true > NO_OPENSSL = true > NO_SENDMAIL = true > > and so on. > > Seems to be exactly what you want to do No it's not. The issue is more complex: Sendmail + DJB's dnscache + nameserver 127.0.0.1 in /etc/resolv.conf + default means of starting up the software = broken system: 1) Sendmail gets started (/etc/rc.sendmail) 2) Sendmail looks up it's name (queries 127.0.0.1:53) 3) Sendmail gets upset 4) dnscache gets started (/usr/local/etc/rc.d/000.svscan.sh) 5) too late -- If you cc me or remove the list(s) completely I'll most likely ignore your message.see http://www.eyrie.org./~eagle/faqs/questions.html To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail
[quoting cleaned up] on 1/8/03 12:50 AM, Daniel Goepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > on 1/7/03 11:29 PM, Jonathan Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 11:26:53PM -0800, Kurt Bigler wrote: >>> on 1/6/03 10:59 PM, Jonathan Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:29:15PM -0800, Kurt Bigler wrote: [...] > The problem came up when my VPS provider did a system upgrade. This > process > left everything I had intact except I lost my sendmail soft link which had > pointed to the sendmail replacement provided by qmail. The link was > replaced by the sendmail binary with the result that I suddently had > sendmail running again beside qmail. The correct thing to do is to leave the sendmail binary alone and tweak /etc/mail/mailer.conf so that the sendmail replacement is invoked instead of the base-system's sendmail. >>> >>> Yes, I actually corrected mailer.conf when the problem occurred, but I have >>> heard that some software will try to use /usr/sbin/sendmail explicitly >>> ignoring mailer.conf. >> >> /usr/sbin/sendmail is a symbolic link to /usr/sbin/mailwrapper. ie >> invoking /usr/sbin/sendmail will consult /etc/mail/mailer.conf. > This is exactly my point, we are running our selves in legacy circles to > comply with the original application. And even worse, we are continuing > to conform for how sendmail wants thing, and still calling it sendmail. > So, for example, if you install postfix...It replaces the sendmail > executable also. So, sendmail (mailwrapper version), points to sendmail > (postfix replacement), which finally points to the postfix delivery app. > Seems a bit much... Now that I understand this I have to say I agree with the way things are. Using the name "sendmail" makes one side of the community happy, effortlessly. Providing hooks to allow inserting a substitute for the standard binary makes the other side (or sides) of the community happy, basically effortlessly. Making /usr/sbin/sendmail a symlink I am guessing permits one to customize without using the mailwrapper mechanism, for those who don't like it. I am guessing that using mailwrapper probably results in a performance hit compared to modifying the usr/sbin/sendmail symlink to directly point to the ultimately-desired "sendmail" binary. My confusion resulted from a faulty memory of what happenned, which I correct here: In my case I had been altering the sendmail symlink, and this conflicted with my VPS provider's standard system upgrade procedure, which replaced my altered symlink. By using the mailwrapper mechanism instead of replacing the symlink I perhaps take a performance hit, but I have accepted this to avoid the problem on future upgrades. I suspect the performance hit is minor compared to everything else that goes on in one of these email transactions, but would appreciate confirmation if anyone else has a better sense of this. Thanks, Kurt Bigler To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
RE: Postfix vs. Sendmail
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 11:26:53PM -0800, Kurt Bigler wrote: > on 1/6/03 10:59 PM, Jonathan Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:29:15PM -0800, Kurt Bigler wrote: > > > > [...] > >> The problem came up when my VPS provider did a system upgrade. This process > >> left everything I had intact except I lost my sendmail soft link which had > >> pointed to the sendmail replacement provided by qmail. The link was > >> replaced by the sendmail binary with the result that I suddently had > >> sendmail running again beside qmail. > > > > The correct thing to do is to leave the sendmail binary alone and > > tweak /etc/mail/mailer.conf so that the sendmail replacement is > > invoked instead of the base-system's sendmail. > > Yes, I actually corrected mailer.conf when the problem occurred, but I have > heard that some software will try to use /usr/sbin/sendmail explicitly > ignoring mailer.conf. /usr/sbin/sendmail is a symbolic link to /usr/sbin/mailwrapper. ie invoking /usr/sbin/sendmail will consult /etc/mail/mailer.conf. -- Jonathan Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- "A person should be able to do a small bit of everything, specialisation is for insects" This is exactly my point, we are running our selves in legacy circles to comply with the original application. And even worse, we are continuing to conform for how sendmail wants thing, and still calling it sendmail. So, for example, if you install postfix...It replaces the sendmail executable also. So, sendmail (mailwrapper version), points to sendmail (postfix replacement), which finally points to the postfix delivery app. Seems a bit much... To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 11:26:53PM -0800, Kurt Bigler wrote: > on 1/6/03 10:59 PM, Jonathan Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:29:15PM -0800, Kurt Bigler wrote: > > > > [...] > >> The problem came up when my VPS provider did a system upgrade. This process > >> left everything I had intact except I lost my sendmail soft link which had > >> pointed to the sendmail replacement provided by qmail. The link was > >> replaced by the sendmail binary with the result that I suddently had > >> sendmail running again beside qmail. > > > > The correct thing to do is to leave the sendmail binary alone and > > tweak /etc/mail/mailer.conf so that the sendmail replacement is > > invoked instead of the base-system's sendmail. > > Yes, I actually corrected mailer.conf when the problem occurred, but I have > heard that some software will try to use /usr/sbin/sendmail explicitly > ignoring mailer.conf. /usr/sbin/sendmail is a symbolic link to /usr/sbin/mailwrapper. ie invoking /usr/sbin/sendmail will consult /etc/mail/mailer.conf. -- Jonathan Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- "A person should be able to do a small bit of everything, specialisation is for insects" To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail
on 1/6/03 10:59 PM, Jonathan Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:29:15PM -0800, Kurt Bigler wrote: > > [...] >> The problem came up when my VPS provider did a system upgrade. This process >> left everything I had intact except I lost my sendmail soft link which had >> pointed to the sendmail replacement provided by qmail. The link was >> replaced by the sendmail binary with the result that I suddently had >> sendmail running again beside qmail. > > The correct thing to do is to leave the sendmail binary alone and > tweak /etc/mail/mailer.conf so that the sendmail replacement is > invoked instead of the base-system's sendmail. Yes, I actually corrected mailer.conf when the problem occurred, but I have heard that some software will try to use /usr/sbin/sendmail explicitly ignoring mailer.conf. That's why so far I also maintain the alias in place of the standard binary. Is this true, or bogus? Thanks, Kurt Bigler To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
RE: Postfix vs. Sendmail
On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 at 22:32:42 -0500, Daniel Goepp wrote: > > Lowell Gilbert wrote: > > I don't know why you're talking about cvsup; cvsup is not relevant > > to this; it is a method for downloading files, primarily from cvs > > archives. What you're looking for is changing the base system > > itself; how you get the source code is irrelevant. > > I don't think it is, because you also have to control what source you > download. So in conjunction with only keeping what you use in sync, > you also only compile and install what you use. In fact, it's the > communication between cvs/cvsup and the FreeBSD src build/install that > I'm having problems with. CVSup has *nothing* to do with an initial install of FreeBSD. Your problem seems to stem from your misunderstanding of how things actually work. The stuff you want is in /usr/src/usr.sbin/sysinstall and has nothing at all to do with CVSup. I'm not trying to flame you here or make you feel stupid, please don't take this message that way. You just seem to have some misconceptions that are leading you in the wrong direction and I'm just trying to point them in a better direction :-) - jim I don't feel flamed, but I should clarify my intentions. I understand completely the separation between the two, this is my problem. My original question is how to unite them, not "are they are separated?" Would this not seem to make sense for many of us to have? I have read that a future version of FreeBSD is going to have a "better" installer, but I'm not sure that is going to solve the problem either, unless it's going to work with the source better. Just having more options on how to install, although nice, would just change where you start, not how you maintain your system over time. Here is what I am proposing: A dynamic installer, that can start at a very basic and bare point, but doesn't have to. For all the folks out there that just want a default install, great...But for those of us who like to actually be in control of our systems, there needs to be more. This installer would not only just install what you selected, but also leave a configuration file, with the options and applications you selected in the install. Now, here is where cvsup needs to step in, and be able to read that file, and only keep the items you have selected synchronized in /usr/src and /usr/ports (/usr/docs too now that I think of it). And then, when you do a make buildworld or make installworld, you only compile and install what you had previous selected. Some folks believe that using the "core" versions of the apps is the best method. However, even the FreeBSD documentation itself conflicts this. OpenSSL is one of the core apps, and that's fine, but yet it's recommended that you install the ports version of OpenSSH, which is also installed by default. What is the actual benefit of an application being considered part of the OS, vs. a local install? I have my own feelings on this, and there appears to be a lot of people on both sides of this one, so I'm not trying to start any debates here. But the line between the two needs to be more clearly defined and decided on. It's a mess to clean some of this up, you do a default install of the openssh port right now, and you now have two copies of it on your system, not an upgraded original. Sorry, I'm going on more than I meant to here. All I'm trying to say is that beginning to end, applications on the server could be controlled better, from what gets installed, to what gets its source synchronized, to what gets compiled. I love BSD, and I'm not digging on the team, they do a great job. But I have met with a great deal of frustration cleaning out applications I don't want at all, upgrading applications I do want, compiling applications I'll never use, etc... So, in closing, if you think there is a way to do what I'm talking about here, I'm all ears. But I don't think it's because of a lack of understanding in how it currently works, but more a desire for it to be more powerful. Peace. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail
On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 at 22:32:42 -0500, Daniel Goepp wrote: > > Lowell Gilbert wrote: > > I don't know why you're talking about cvsup; cvsup is not relevant > > to this; it is a method for downloading files, primarily from cvs > > archives. What you're looking for is changing the base system > > itself; how you get the source code is irrelevant. > > I don't think it is, because you also have to control what source you > download. So in conjunction with only keeping what you use in sync, > you also only compile and install what you use. In fact, it's the > communication between cvs/cvsup and the FreeBSD src build/install that > I'm having problems with. CVSup has *nothing* to do with an initial install of FreeBSD. Your problem seems to stem from your misunderstanding of how things actually work. The stuff you want is in /usr/src/usr.sbin/sysinstall and has nothing at all to do with CVSup. I'm not trying to flame you here or make you feel stupid, please don't take this message that way. You just seem to have some misconceptions that are leading you in the wrong direction and I'm just trying to point them in a better direction :-) - jim -- jim mock[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:29:15PM -0800, Kurt Bigler wrote: [...] > The problem came up when my VPS provider did a system upgrade. This process > left everything I had intact except I lost my sendmail soft link which had > pointed to the sendmail replacement provided by qmail. The link was > replaced by the sendmail binary with the result that I suddently had > sendmail running again beside qmail. The correct thing to do is to leave the sendmail binary alone and tweak /etc/mail/mailer.conf so that the sendmail replacement is invoked instead of the base-system's sendmail. -- Jonathan Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail
At 12:43 AM 1.7.2003 -0500, Adam Maas wrote: >Definitely keep them included, but not so closely tied to the core >installation. Perhaps take a page from Slackware, which includes them by >default, even on a minimal install, but you can manually deselect them if >you don't wish sendmail (or bind, etc). > >--Adam > >- Original Message - >From: "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 12:37 AM >Subject: Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail > > >> Not to miss out on the party either, but I'd like it on record that there >> are also people, like me, who like things like sendmail and Perl, etc, >> included in the FreeBSD distribution. :) I had to install these packages >> anyway, and found it very useful to see them already included. >> >> I recompiled sendmail, a bit later, as I wanted SASL support; but still, >> having the full source already present (which you know is certified to >> compile properly, as it came with the distribution), was a big help. >> >> As far as I'm concerned, include as much as you can. :) >> >> - Mark >> >> System Administrator Asarian-host.org >> >> --- >> "If you were supposed to understand it, >> we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx >> This is a GREAT product and I also cast a vote to stay the course and leave sendmail, et al in there. Certainly have not been bothered by any of it. Like an earlier post -- guess you'll just have to "roll your own". Wouldn't this be a topic for advocacy anyway?? Best regards, Jack L. Stone, Administrator SageOne Net http://www.sage-one.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail
Adam Maas wrote: Definitely keep them included, but not so closely tied to the core installation. Perhaps take a page from Slackware, which includes them by default, even on a minimal install, but you can manually deselect them if you don't wish sendmail (or bind, etc). See /usr/src/release/picobsd, if you want a truly minimal installation. -Chuck To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail
Definitely keep them included, but not so closely tied to the core installation. Perhaps take a page from Slackware, which includes them by default, even on a minimal install, but you can manually deselect them if you don't wish sendmail (or bind, etc). --Adam - Original Message - From: "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 12:37 AM Subject: Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail > Not to miss out on the party either, but I'd like it on record that there > are also people, like me, who like things like sendmail and Perl, etc, > included in the FreeBSD distribution. :) I had to install these packages > anyway, and found it very useful to see them already included. > > I recompiled sendmail, a bit later, as I wanted SASL support; but still, > having the full source already present (which you know is certified to > compile properly, as it came with the distribution), was a big help. > > As far as I'm concerned, include as much as you can. :) > > - Mark > > System Administrator Asarian-host.org > > --- > "If you were supposed to understand it, > we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail
Not to miss out on the party either, but I'd like it on record that there are also people, like me, who like things like sendmail and Perl, etc, included in the FreeBSD distribution. :) I had to install these packages anyway, and found it very useful to see them already included. I recompiled sendmail, a bit later, as I wanted SASL support; but still, having the full source already present (which you know is certified to compile properly, as it came with the distribution), was a big help. As far as I'm concerned, include as much as you can. :) - Mark System Administrator Asarian-host.org --- "If you were supposed to understand it, we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail
On 2003-01-06 19:48, Daniel Goepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lowell Gilbert wrote: > >Then do it. If it works, I doubt there will be much trouble > >getting it accepted into the system. > > [...] > If someone can save me some time in searching, where is the source > that controls what is installed by FreeBSD? You'll probably want to roll a custom `release' so might as well start at http://cvsweb.freebsd.org/src/release/. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
RE: Postfix vs. Sendmail
I don't think it is, because you also have to control what source you download. So in conjunction with only keeping what you use in sync, you also only compile and install what you use. In fact, it's the communication between cvs/cvsup and the FreeBSD src build/install that I'm having problems with. -Daniel -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Lowell Gilbert Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 10:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'FreeBSD Questions' Subject: Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail "Daniel Goepp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Lowell Gilbert wrote: > > >Then do it. If it works, I doubt there will be much trouble getting > >it accepted into the system. > > Well yes, I would love to. > > Plus, why > invent the wheel. CVSup is already written, and the FreeBSD core team > has control of the source tree, and what gets installed. If someone can > save me some time in searching, where is the source that controls what > is installed by FreeBSD? I don't know why you're talking about cvsup; cvsup is not relevant to this; it is a method for downloading files, primarily from cvs archives. What you're looking for is changing the base system itself; how you get the source code is irrelevant. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail
"Daniel Goepp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Lowell Gilbert wrote: > > >Then do it. If it works, I doubt there will be much trouble getting > >it accepted into the system. > > Well yes, I would love to. > > Plus, why > invent the wheel. CVSup is already written, and the FreeBSD core team > has control of the source tree, and what gets installed. If someone can > save me some time in searching, where is the source that controls what > is installed by FreeBSD? I don't know why you're talking about cvsup; cvsup is not relevant to this; it is a method for downloading files, primarily from cvs archives. What you're looking for is changing the base system itself; how you get the source code is irrelevant. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail
on 1/6/03 4:48 PM, Daniel Goepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lowell Gilbert wrote: > >> Then do it. If it works, I doubt there will be much trouble getting >> it accepted into the system. > > Well yes, I would love to. > > However, I'm not sure I have the know how yet. I have plenty of > experience in programming, but more db and interface stuff, I also don't > have any specific experience with FreeBSD development. Plus, why > invent the wheel. CVSup is already written, and the FreeBSD core team > has control of the source tree, and what gets installed. If someone can > save me some time in searching, where is the source that controls what > is installed by FreeBSD? > > Also, anyone on a first name basis with John Polstra? I have submitted > an email to the "comments" address on their web page, but I would be > willing to bet it will get swept under the rug. And I'm not sure > learning Modula-3 is on my agenda right now either. > > I do hear what you are saying though. Trust me, I love this environment > where so many people run into a blocking point, writes some to fix the > problem, and then submit it to share with everyone else, and I would > love to contribute in any way I can, with whoever might actually have > more knowledge on this matter than I do. But also, these are projects > currently in someone else's court right now, and I don't know the > players. > > I realize, as I mentioned in another post, I may well be the only person > that really wants this functionality. I welcome comments though about > what other people think on the matter, in general or specific terms. I have had a related problem, though some of the details are out of my control, and I am unaware of the exact mechanisms involved. I used a VPS service provider - that is I have a virtual server. As I understand it, this service is based on standard FreeBSD VPS capabilities. Sendmail was the first thing I got rid of after trying it for a few days. I replaced it with qmail+vpopmail. The problem came up when my VPS provider did a system upgrade. This process left everything I had intact except I lost my sendmail soft link which had pointed to the sendmail replacement provided by qmail. The link was replaced by the sendmail binary with the result that I suddently had sendmail running again beside qmail. The only consequence of this that I know of is that local root email (cron stuff) suddenly got forwarded according to the long-forgotten sendmail configuration. The install process my provider uses for system upgrades is out of my control, as is the kernel configuration. However, I am putting in my vote for making sendmail as optional as possible. If it were an optional part of the FreeBSD distribution it is more likely my provider would make this "option" (just say "no" to sendmail) available to me. Regards, Kurt Bigler > Or any information about what future plans there are on modifications to > the install process. And if this is not the forum for this, I would > appreciate being told where the best place to bring this up would be. I > checked the archives on freebsd-config, and it would appear to be a > largely dead list. > > Thanks. > > Peace. > > -Daniel > > > -----Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On > Behalf Of Lowell Gilbert > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 9:42 AM > To: Daniel Goepp > Cc: FreeBSD Questions > Subject: Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail > > Daniel Goepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> So mx1.freebsd.org itself runs Postfix, but yet, sendmail is still so >> embedded in FreeBSD that it's almost imposible to get cleaned out. > When >> are they going to make the FreeBSD install configurable enough to not > have >> to include sendmail, bind, openssl, etc? I choose to either install > these >> apps as ports, or not at all. >> >> Is there a way to break down the install, and just get a bare bare > bare >> bones install of just base, crypto and man pages, like the install > says >> it's going to do? I can't imagine this would be too hard to do! > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
RE: Postfix vs. Sendmail
Lowell Gilbert wrote: >Then do it. If it works, I doubt there will be much trouble getting >it accepted into the system. Well yes, I would love to. However, I'm not sure I have the know how yet. I have plenty of experience in programming, but more db and interface stuff, I also don't have any specific experience with FreeBSD development. Plus, why invent the wheel. CVSup is already written, and the FreeBSD core team has control of the source tree, and what gets installed. If someone can save me some time in searching, where is the source that controls what is installed by FreeBSD? Also, anyone on a first name basis with John Polstra? I have submitted an email to the "comments" address on their web page, but I would be willing to bet it will get swept under the rug. And I'm not sure learning Modula-3 is on my agenda right now either. I do hear what you are saying though. Trust me, I love this environment where so many people run into a blocking point, writes some to fix the problem, and then submit it to share with everyone else, and I would love to contribute in any way I can, with whoever might actually have more knowledge on this matter than I do. But also, these are projects currently in someone else's court right now, and I don't know the players. I realize, as I mentioned in another post, I may well be the only person that really wants this functionality. I welcome comments though about what other people think on the matter, in general or specific terms. Or any information about what future plans there are on modifications to the install process. And if this is not the forum for this, I would appreciate being told where the best place to bring this up would be. I checked the archives on freebsd-config, and it would appear to be a largely dead list. Thanks. Peace. -Daniel -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Lowell Gilbert Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 9:42 AM To: Daniel Goepp Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail Daniel Goepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So mx1.freebsd.org itself runs Postfix, but yet, sendmail is still so > embedded in FreeBSD that it's almost imposible to get cleaned out. When > are they going to make the FreeBSD install configurable enough to not have > to include sendmail, bind, openssl, etc? I choose to either install these > apps as ports, or not at all. > > Is there a way to break down the install, and just get a bare bare bare > bones install of just base, crypto and man pages, like the install says > it's going to do? I can't imagine this would be too hard to do! To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
RE: Postfix vs. Sendmail
Well sort of. That only prevents them from recompiling and updating if you do a build/install world. I realize I'm probably requiring more control than is natural, but I don't want sendmail to have ever been installed in the first place. But really, it goes beyond that. The FreeBSD crew, has decided for us the list of apps they consider to be "part of" the OS. Some contributed, some developed by themselves, some standard unix tools, etc...However, that leaves the rest of us cleaning out these apps that we didn't want in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I love FreeBSD, but this particular aspect of it is driving me up a wall. I'm trying to figure out how to get the most bare install possible, and then from there, add things on that I want. It would seem that this would be easier for them than harder. And a nice little app to control what actually goes into the install. I know, really there is probably little effect on the system to have things on it that are not used. However, to some that's considered a security breach, to me, it also just bothers me. What if I don't want rcp to be installed on my system at all? There are a million and one of these little apps, utilities, etc...I can understand that some are standard. However, they can be categorized, and selected. I'm probably the only person that wants this level of control. So, sorry for wasting everyone's time... Peace. -Daniel -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-freebsd [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Duncan Anker Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 6:53 PM To: FreeBSD Questions; Daniel Goepp Cc: Lowell Gilbert Subject: Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 00:42, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > Daniel Goepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > So mx1.freebsd.org itself runs Postfix, but yet, sendmail is still so > > embedded in FreeBSD that it's almost imposible to get cleaned out. When > > are they going to make the FreeBSD install configurable enough to not have > > to include sendmail, bind, openssl, etc? I choose to either install these > > apps as ports, or not at all. > > > > Is there a way to break down the install, and just get a bare bare bare > > bones install of just base, crypto and man pages, like the install says > > it's going to do? I can't imagine this would be too hard to do! > > Then do it. If it works, I doubt there will be much trouble getting > it accepted into the system. um ... what's wrong with doing this in /etc/make.conf? NO_BIND = true NO_OPENSSL = true NO_SENDMAIL = true and so on. Seems to be exactly what you want to do -- The information contained in this email is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose or use the information in this email in any way. Dark Blue Sea does not guarantee the integrity of any emails or attached files. The views or opinions expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Dark Blue Sea. Dark Blue Sea does not warrant that any attachments are free from viruses or other defects. You assume all liability for any loss, damage or other consequences which may arise from opening or using the attachments. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 00:42, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > Daniel Goepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > So mx1.freebsd.org itself runs Postfix, but yet, sendmail is still so > > embedded in FreeBSD that it's almost imposible to get cleaned out. When > > are they going to make the FreeBSD install configurable enough to not have > > to include sendmail, bind, openssl, etc? I choose to either install these > > apps as ports, or not at all. > > > > Is there a way to break down the install, and just get a bare bare bare > > bones install of just base, crypto and man pages, like the install says > > it's going to do? I can't imagine this would be too hard to do! > > Then do it. If it works, I doubt there will be much trouble getting > it accepted into the system. um ... what's wrong with doing this in /etc/make.conf? NO_BIND = true NO_OPENSSL = true NO_SENDMAIL = true and so on. Seems to be exactly what you want to do -- The information contained in this email is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose or use the information in this email in any way. Dark Blue Sea does not guarantee the integrity of any emails or attached files. The views or opinions expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Dark Blue Sea. Dark Blue Sea does not warrant that any attachments are free from viruses or other defects. You assume all liability for any loss, damage or other consequences which may arise from opening or using the attachments. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail
Daniel Goepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So mx1.freebsd.org itself runs Postfix, but yet, sendmail is still so > embedded in FreeBSD that it's almost imposible to get cleaned out. When > are they going to make the FreeBSD install configurable enough to not have > to include sendmail, bind, openssl, etc? I choose to either install these > apps as ports, or not at all. > > Is there a way to break down the install, and just get a bare bare bare > bones install of just base, crypto and man pages, like the install says > it's going to do? I can't imagine this would be too hard to do! Then do it. If it works, I doubt there will be much trouble getting it accepted into the system. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
