From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Dec 31 18:48:16 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA22671
          for freebsd-current-outgoing; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 18:48:16 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from cis.ohio-state.edu (mail.cis.ohio-state.edu [164.107.115.5])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA22665;
          Thu, 31 Dec 1998 18:48:14 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from cmcurtin@cis.ohio-state.edu)
Received: from gold.cis.ohio-state.edu (gold.cis.ohio-state.edu [164.107.112.16])
	by cis.ohio-state.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA28769;
	Thu, 31 Dec 1998 21:47:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from cmcurtin@localhost)
	by gold.cis.ohio-state.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA10705;
	Thu, 31 Dec 1998 21:47:39 -0500 (EST)
To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb@FreeBSD.ORG>,
        donegan@quick.net, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: sendmail throughput (was: HEADS UP: Postfix is coming. new uid, gid required.)
References: <199901010122.RAA05674@apollo.backplane.com>
X-Face: L"IcL.b%SDN]0Kql2b`e.}+i05V9fi\yX#H1+Xl)3!+n/3?5`%-SA-HDg<IT;O8XnF>Pk9uTk<3dv^J5DCgal)-E{`zN#*o6F|y>r)\<<ui53(fC)EM]42*oF|P@Hm"Z+GK%"b#q'ycf=2s5%NNR0S;8"vcNN"O;O}YpB{&^1xazqDMg^v!6LS7S"5|}2uTl$NKV5}Bkca{M|Y^cZD@{1
From: Matt Curtin <cmcurtin@interhack.net>
Date: 31 Dec 1998 21:47:39 -0500
In-Reply-To: Matthew Dillon's message of "Thu, 31 Dec 1998 17:22:22 -0800 (PST)"
Message-ID: <xlx4sqbhfp0.fsf@gold.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Lines: 27
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/XEmacs 20.4 - "Emerald"
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> writes:

>     This new mail program thingy should be a port.  I would like to
>     point out that there is nothing wrong with ports... hell, even
>     'less' is a port!

Agreed.

Sendmail has its problems, and other MTAs, especially Postfix, do
solve some of these problems.

But I think it would be *much* more prudent to introduce Postfix to
FreeBSD in the form of a port.  It just hasn't been in the open long
enough to have its bugs shaken out.  It was only in the last week that
some changes were made after some folks took a peek at how Postfix is
implemented. 

The few sites who actually do need the sort of performance increases
(or any other advantage) offered by Postfix could easily get it
working from the ports collection.  The vast majority of sites are
more likely to want to err on the side of stability.

Give Postfix more time to be more thoroughly reviewed before making it 
the standard MTA.

-- 
Matt Curtin cmcurtin@interhack.net http://www.interhack.net/people/cmcurtin/

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message