Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail

2003-01-13 Thread Roman Neuhauser
# [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

2003-01-13 Thread Duncan Anker
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

2003-01-13 Thread Roman Neuhauser
# [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

2003-01-12 Thread Duncan Anker
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

2003-01-10 Thread Roman Neuhauser
# [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

2003-01-08 Thread Daniel Goepp
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

2003-01-08 Thread Kurt Bigler
[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

2003-01-07 Thread Jim Mock
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 mij@{soupnazi|opendarwin}.org   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message



RE: Postfix vs. Sendmail

2003-01-07 Thread Daniel Goepp
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

2003-01-07 Thread Kurt Bigler
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

2003-01-07 Thread Jonathan Chen
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

2003-01-06 Thread Lowell Gilbert
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



Re: Postfix vs. Sendmail

2003-01-06 Thread Duncan Anker
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

2003-01-06 Thread Daniel Goepp
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

2003-01-06 Thread Daniel Goepp
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

2003-01-06 Thread Kurt Bigler
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

2003-01-06 Thread Lowell Gilbert
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

2003-01-06 Thread Daniel Goepp
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

2003-01-06 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
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

2003-01-06 Thread Mark
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

2003-01-06 Thread Chuck Swiger
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

2003-01-06 Thread Jack L. Stone
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

2003-01-06 Thread Jonathan Chen
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