From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 24 07:34:24 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F8E5A30; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:34:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com (mail-wi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E03001D7C; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:34:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id cc10so2689281wib.10 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 23:34:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=3xXUPrLIoNP9+mL0HMwq66Efcu+zlGKJqhT49DtYl8w=; b=Pc4dwtFGcPHGDf+XWDxDna4WAye3i6MiNscdrPo0SZNPpBgSjBgofuOsI0Ekgu7WeC NvMygbJbEjjKajwm9TlXtnkkb/rK58wzopVRDF2LChu+nfQcflnHGtZE1RHuWoC49GlU xaipJscZMRFPVMsPrYzLAV24vuwiLs43bGelA6HngVsXpffVTDKz4DTwMQ+ZhmEe7IEY 4DvoqqHk+QhvlFTzwzDvRmYtwq272f2/Gtgqqqxr4TgcTcz8nkJh0BSs90LOgv4Fnua9 SXFq/uhJBJI/Hv/Kxq94uRzip0MTwGg29X+tGamvMuF5RMrIvzGqq0G7a8sg0rYPwQKE Tt/A== X-Received: by 10.181.13.82 with SMTP id ew18mr12906147wid.22.1393227262252; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 23:34:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from ithaqua.etoilebsd.net (ithaqua.etoilebsd.net. [37.59.37.188]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id n3sm21666820wix.10.2014.02.23.23.34.20 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 23 Feb 2014 23:34:21 -0800 (PST) Sender: Baptiste Daroussin Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:34:19 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin To: Julio Merino Subject: Re: Import of DragonFly Mail Agent Message-ID: <20140224073418.GX1699@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <20140223211155.GS1699@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NJ5+aVN4Egd/eJfU" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: current@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:34:24 -0000 --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 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--