Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:34:19 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> To: Julio Merino <jmmv@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Import of DragonFly Mail Agent Message-ID: <20140224073418.GX1699@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <CAFY7cWBh0ThajQpK4wZYj0wPrhTL608wtNDQNvOLnryjp4_jCg@mail.gmail.com> References: <20140223211155.GS1699@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <CAFY7cWBh0ThajQpK4wZYj0wPrhTL608wtNDQNvOLnryjp4_jCg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--NJ5+aVN4Egd/eJfU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 11:26:20PM -0500, Julio Merino wrote: > On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>wro= te: >=20 > > Hi, > > > > As some of you may have noticed, I have imorted a couple of days ago dma > > (DragonFly Mail Agent) in base. I have been asked to explain my motivat= ion > > so > > here they are. > > > > DragonFly Mail Agent is a minimalistic mailer that is able to relay mai= ls > > to > > some smtp servers (with TLS, authentication and so on) > > > > It supports MASQUERADE and NULLCLIENT, and is able to deliver mails loc= ally > > (respecting aliases). > > > > I imported it because dma is lightweight, BSD license and easy to use. > > > > The code base is rather small and easy to capsicumize (which I plan to = do) > > > > My initial goal is not to replace sendmail. >=20 >=20 > But is it an eventual goal? *I* don't see why not, but if it is: what's > the plan? How is the decision to drop sendmail going to be made when the > time comes? (I.e. who _can_ and will make the call?) Anyone at anytime can call for this ;) if some bits are missing in dma to achieve this goal I m willing to implement them. >=20 >=20 > > All I want is a small mailer > > simple to configure, and not listening to port 25, suitable for small > > environment (embedded and/or resource bounded) as well as for server > > deployment. > > >=20 > Playing devil's advocate: what specific problems is this trying to solve? > I'd argue, for example, that postfix can be also easily configured and c= an > be made to not listen on port 25 for local mail delivery, while at the sa= me > time it is a fully-functional MTA that could replace sendmail altogether. > (Which, by the way, is the configuration with which postfix ships within > the NetBSD base system.) >=20 > The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have seen NetBSD > maintain two MTAs (sendmail + postfix) in the base system for _years_ and > it was not a pretty situation. The eventual removal of sendmail was > appreciated, but of course it came with the associated bikeshedding. I do understand that, one of the goal of this mail is also to get feedback = =66rom users about what they do expect, is dma fulfilling they normal requirememts= for a local mailer in general purpose cases, if yes I do not see a reason not to remove sendmail from base. Usual complains about sendmail in base until now has been: - complex configuration - long history of security concerns - no need for a full mta in base regards, Bapt --NJ5+aVN4Egd/eJfU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlMK9foACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EzHpwCgkfH0rZihkRiwEFJ3XFV0wuYi 6fUAniDcceguqhiMp4/6+ii5Q14I3Y+L =3BKT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --NJ5+aVN4Egd/eJfU--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140224073418.GX1699>