From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 24 09:49:31 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F680DA9 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:49:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.lhr1.as41113.net (mail.lhr1.as41113.net [91.208.177.22]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE9291D16 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:49:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.21.87.41] (unknown [212.9.98.193]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: lists@rewt.org.uk) by mail.lhr1.as41113.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3fXdb80RwTz7rBW for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:41:56 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <530B13CA.6000005@rewt.org.uk> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:41:30 +0000 From: Joe Holden User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Import of DragonFly Mail Agent References: <20140223211155.GS1699@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:49:31 -0000 On 24/02/2014 04:26, Julio Merino wrote: > On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> As some of you may have noticed, I have imorted a couple of days ago dma >> (DragonFly Mail Agent) in base. I have been asked to explain my motivation >> so >> here they are. >> >> DragonFly Mail Agent is a minimalistic mailer that is able to relay mails >> to >> some smtp servers (with TLS, authentication and so on) >> >> It supports MASQUERADE and NULLCLIENT, and is able to deliver mails locally >> (respecting aliases). >> >> I imported it because dma is lightweight, BSD license and easy to use. >> >> The code base is rather small and easy to capsicumize (which I plan to do) >> >> My initial goal is not to replace sendmail. > > > But is it an eventual goal? *I* don't see why not, but if it is: what's > the plan? How is the decision to drop sendmail going to be made when the > time comes? (I.e. who _can_ and will make the call?) > > >> All I want is a small mailer >> simple to configure, and not listening to port 25, suitable for small >> environment (embedded and/or resource bounded) as well as for server >> deployment. >> > > Playing devil's advocate: what specific problems is this trying to solve? > I'd argue, for example, that postfix can be also easily configured and can > be made to not listen on port 25 for local mail delivery, while at the same > time it is a fully-functional MTA that could replace sendmail altogether. > (Which, by the way, is the configuration with which postfix ships within > the NetBSD base system.) > > The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have seen NetBSD > maintain two MTAs (sendmail + postfix) in the base system for _years_ and > it was not a pretty situation. The eventual removal of sendmail was > appreciated, but of course it came with the associated bikeshedding. *dons flame-proof suit* The trend towards having sensible lightweight things in the base is a good thing IMO. There is no need for things like bind (replaced by unbound), or a full featured mta like sendmail in the base, base install should contain enough to get going but for specific functions like performing MTA tasks, the user can install the appropriate software, such as postfix. Just my 2p :)