From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 28 15:09:55 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E4AE16A41F for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:09:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7DA543D77 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:09:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.13.1/8.13.3) id jBSF9WKM017632; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:09:32 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dan) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:09:32 -0600 From: Dan Nelson To: Lowell Gilbert Message-ID: <20051228150931.GE39217@dan.emsphone.com> References: <200512280535.WAA16578@lariat.net> <441wzxnvox.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <441wzxnvox.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> X-OS: FreeBSD 5.4-STABLE X-message-flag: Outlook Error User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Cc: Brett Glass , questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sendmail X port X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:09:55 -0000 In the last episode (Dec 28), Lowell Gilbert said: > Brett Glass writes: > > I don't see Sendmail X available as a port or package. I'm > > interested in trying this version because it's the first to > > eliminate the horribly cryptic system of m4 macros, "classes", and > > address parsing rules that configured earlier versions. Is there a > > reason why it's not available as a package or port for FreeBSD? > > Well, it's still missing a lot of functionality that you need in a > FreeBSD system (such as the ability to actually deliver or submit > messages), so it's more of a challenge to port properly than one > would think. That's probably why it's still considered alpha > software. > > It builds easily enough, though. And the configuration sure is a lot > simpler (at the expense of some very powerful capabilities that were > very rarely used). So it's not as though there is some reason > somebody is trying to keep it *out* of the ports system. It is in ports, as mail/smx . -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com