From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Apr 6 21:40:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA20968 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 21:40:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [204.216.27.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA20931 for ; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 21:40:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51]) by who.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.11) with ESMTP id MAA25457 for ; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 12:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ampersand (ztm04-05.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.32.102]) by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.7.6/XS4ALL) with SMTP id VAA02681 for ; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 21:43:47 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970406194331.00885b6c@xs4all.nl> X-Sender: albast@xs4all.nl (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 21:43:31 +0200 To: hackers@freebsd.org From: albast Subject: Re: sendmail in 2.2 Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 14:14 6-4-97 -0000, mark wrote: >Are we ready for religious wars? I certainly think that qmail should be >an optional MTA for freebsd (if it can't be the default). I agree. > Admittedly, you have to do things 'differently' with qmail, but arguably, the >'different' way is the way it should always have been. > >Let the people decide! If the port already exists, why isn't it in there? > >-mark > Well.. this is where I 'disagree'.. I think it's more a matter of opinion. Personally, I hate the way qmail is implemented. But arguably or not, it seems only fair to have qmail in the ports collection along with the few other MTA's available, and let ppl decide which one they like using most. Regards, Jeroen Hogeveen, J.Hogeveen@twiddle.com