From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sun Dec 10 21:54:58 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9E7EE9E779 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 21:54:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adamw@adamw.org) Received: from apnoea.adamw.org (apnoea.adamw.org [104.225.5.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "apnoea.adamw.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 290A064FDA for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 21:54:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adamw@adamw.org) Received: by apnoea.adamw.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 68938649 TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:54:56 -0700 (MST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; delsp=yes; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) Subject: Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check From: Adam Weinberger In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:54:54 -0700 Cc: Kurt Jaeger , FreeBSD Ports Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <81316CF1-E914-4306-9F37-A444447ECABD@adamw.org> References: To: bsd-lists@BSDforge.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 21:54:59 -0000 > On 8 Dec, 2017, at 20:11, Chris H wrote: > > On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 02:59:28 +0100 "Kurt Jaeger" said > >> Hi! >> > > > First, there is movement afoot to remove sendmail from FreeBSD and >> > > > replace it with dma(1). >> > Hmm. This does not come as good news to me. I've been working on an >> antispam >> > system that targets the use of Sendmail, >> If sendmail is available via ports, wouldn't that be enough ? > Thanks for the reply, Kurt. > Perhaps. Haven't tried it yet (means even more work). :( > But hopefully. > I thought all my work would have been more valuable, given that Sendmail > was installed by default in FreeBSD. Disappointing, but perhaps still > doable. > Time will tell. Hi Chris, I’d argue that if your work loses value if sendmail is removed from base (suggesting that users wouldn’t choose sendmail when given an option from ports), then that suggests that sendmail isn’t the right thing to include in base. Base should ship with the thing that we expect the majority of users to WANT to choose. Clearly there are many users who still prefer sendmail. Your work still has value! # Adam -- Adam Weinberger adamw@adamw.org http://www.adamw.org