From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sun Dec 10 22:57:17 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 7070DEA02B3 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 22:57:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portmaster@BSDforge.com) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (static-24-113-41-81.wavecable.com [24.113.41.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44FD366FB5 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 22:57:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portmaster@BSDforge.com) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by udns.ultimatedns.net (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id vBAMwNBo012522; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:58:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from portmaster@BSDforge.com) X-Mailer: UDNSMS MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: , In-Reply-To: From: "Chris H" Reply-To: portmaster@BSDforge.com To: "Adam Weinberger" Subject: Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:58:29 -0800 Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 22:57:17 -0000 On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:49:02 -0700 "Adam Weinberger" said > > On 10 Dec, 2017, at 10:11, Steve Kargl =20 > > wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 01:21:13PM +0000, Matthew Seaman wrote: > >> Hence the current sendmail in base is neither fish nor fowl: way > >> overpowered for almost all installations, but with significant > >> limitations for a machine providing a full-blown mail service=2E > >> Personally I agree with his reasoning: unless the primary function of > >> your FreeBSD machine is to be an MTA, you really don't need any more > >> capability than to either deliver to a local mailbox, or forward all > >> e-mails to a smart host=2E Certainly you don't need anything capable of > >> receiving incoming e-mails=2E > > > > I disagree=2E FreeBSd used to pride itself on being a complete operating > > system oout-of-the-box=2E Lately, a smaller number of developers are > > moving FreeBSD to being a kernel with a bunch of add-on software=2E > > > > dma(1) does not support a =2Eforward file and by extension vacation(1)=2E > > Without =2Eforward, then those of use who use procmail(1) (subject of > > this email thread) in =2Eforward and by extension spamassisin are > > hosed=2E > > > > Chapter 27 of the FreeBSD Handbook would need to be rewritten before > > sendmail can be removed=2E It is assumed that sendmail is installed > > with base=2E >=20 > Hi Steve, >=20 > I agree with you about the merits of FreeBSD providing a complete system = =20 > out-of-the-box=2E But of all the mail servers out there, sendmail is the mo= st=20 >=20 > archaic and arcane=2E Sendmail is used primarily by people who are intimate= ly=20 >=20 > familiar with it over a long history, and simply isn=E2=80=99t a great ch= oice for=20 >=20 > people getting into mail servers=2E I=E2=80=99d rather see sendmail install= able =20 > through ports, and replaced in base with a better solution=2E Sendmail is t= oo=20 >=20 > difficult to configure correctly; we should keep it trivial to install = =20 > (i=2Ee=2E ports) for those who prefer it, but it shouldn=E2=80=99t be our pri= mary =20 > recommendation for users looking for a new MTA=2E >=20 > DMA is a phenomenal program and is totally sufficient for a large =20 > percentage of our user-base=2E I wasn=E2=80=99t aware of the lack of =2Eforwa= rd =20 > support, and I completely agree that that=E2=80=99s a very detrimental om= ission=2E >=20 > # Adam OK I'm puzzled a bit=2E FreeBSD' motto has always been: FreeBSD The power to serve! but many of the proposed, and recent changes/removals end up more like: FreeBSD I's castrated! IOW Why the big push to eliminate perhaps it's biggest attributes=2E FreeBSD has always been a *server* out-of-the-box=2E This should never change=2E You need something other than a server? You can install almost every other OS/distro=2E Let's also not forget, that if you need a FreeBSD /desktop/ one need only look at the fork to accomplish just that http://www=2Edesktopbsd=2Enet/ Want to produce a FreeBSD desktop from the FreeBSD source? https://www=2Efreebsd=2Eorg/doc/en/books/handbook/x11-wm=2Ehtml from the handbook=2E There's also much documentation on all the other possibilities regarding more lightweight alternatives to the applications installed in $BASE=2E You don't want Sendmail installed by/as default? FreeBSD *already* provides that option in src=2Econf(5): WITHOUT_SENDMAIL=3Dtrue and a myriad of other possibilities -- including the addition of things from ports(7)! Please, let's not attempt to dilute FreeBSD' biggest strengths/ value anymore that has already been done=2E FreeBSD' strongest attribute is it's being quite possibly, the best server installation out-of-the-box -- certainly the closest POSIX server out-of-the-box=2E Why remove it's best selling point/attribute? --Chris