From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Jun 18 16:11: 1 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from 12-234-90-219.client.attbi.com (12-234-90-219.client.attbi.com [12.234.90.219]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDD2337B419; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:10:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from master.gorean.org (master.gorean.org [10.0.0.2]) by 12-234-90-219.client.attbi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g5INAYBu025064; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:10:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (doug@localhost) by master.gorean.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Submit) with ESMTP id g5INAYSR002535; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:10:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:10:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton To: "Jin Guojun[DSD]" Cc: "Crist J. Clark" , , Subject: Re: conf/39444: rc.sendmail syntax error: cannot disable sendmail In-Reply-To: <3D0FB406.83DE356D@lbl.gov> Message-ID: <20020618155900.O2483-100000@master.gorean.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG [ Greg, including you to get your opinion on my proposal below, and switching to -arch for the same reason. ] On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Jin Guojun[DSD] wrote: > "Crist J. Clark" wrote: > > "NO" _can_ be used. It's meaning is different than "NONE." "NO" means > > not to run the sendmail(8) listener, but the submitting and 'outbound' > > daemons can still be run. > > sendmail does not need to run on background to send/submit outbound mail. > The backgrounding daemon is solely for receiving inbound message. There are two daemons started for "typical" mail _delivery_ purposes. One is there to run the queue periodically. Current thought is that this is superior to doing it through cron. The other is in fact there to receive connections from the local host. This is new to recent versions of sendmail, and allows the daemon that runs for that purpose to do so as an unprivileged user. > Nop, the manual page does not say "NO" can be used any where. If "NO" > cannot be used, then, it is not compatible to existing sys-admin > syntax. It forces to use "NONE" instead of "NO" as Doug's message > in closing this case: The problem here is that historically sendmail_enable="NO" always meant "don't run a listener for incoming mail, but still let me send mail from this host." The current situation preserves that meaning, even though it still starts two sendmail daemons. What I think is confusing to users is that we're trying to overload the sendmail_enable option to also handle whether or not to use any kind of sendmail by adding the NONE value. What I think we need is a new knob, something like use_real_sendmail, that will default to YES, leaving the new status quo for sendmail_enable="NO" intact, but also be able to completely disable all sendmail stuff, including listeners for outgoing mail, queue runners, etc. That way users can have a clear indication of what's going to happen, and the same YES/NO syntax they are familiar with. I'm definitely open to suggestions on the name of the knob, but what do y'all think of the idea? -- "We have known freedom's price. We have shown freedom's power. And in this great conflict, ... we will see freedom's victory." - George W. Bush, President of the United States State of the Union, January 28, 2002 Do YOU Yahoo!? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message