From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Jul  1 16:19:04 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA27114
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 16:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.barrnet.net (mail.barrnet.net [131.119.246.7])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA27108
          for <freebsd-hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 16:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from seagull.rtd.com (seagull.rtd.com [198.102.68.2]) by mail.barrnet.net (8.7.5/MAIL-RELAY-LEN) with ESMTP id NAA25922 for <freebsd-hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org>; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 13:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from dgy@localhost) by seagull.rtd.com (8.7.5/1.2) id MAA03375 for freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 12:57:20 -0700 (MST)
From: Don Yuniskis <dgy@rtd.com>
Message-Id: <199606291957.MAA03375@seagull.rtd.com>
Subject: Re: freefall.mc patch
To: freebsd-hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD hackers)
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 12:57:20 -0700 (MST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> >      Another "no-brainer" diff... Damned if *I* can see where this was 
> > used in the new scheme of things...
> 
> >   define(`UUCP_RELAY', ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU)dnl
> >   define(`BITNET_RELAY', mailhost.Berkeley.EDU)dnl
> > - define(`CSNET_RELAY', mailhost.Berkeley.EDU)dnl
> 
> Actually, none of the 3 lines that I've left in above are any use, to
> my knowledge the UUCP_RELAY machine doesn't exist anymore, and I'm not
> at all sure about the BITNET or CSNET stuff at all. IMHO they should
> all come out, but since Eric Allman has left them in the generic .cf
> files he's shipping in sendmail 8.7.x, I haven't raised a fuss.

But, "CSNET_RELAY" is not even *referenced* in any of the other macro files
(i.e. it's as meaningful as "define(`ESMERELDA',`Mary had a little lamb')")

The others I erred on the "safe" side :>  -- at least UUCP_RELAY and
BITNET_RELAY are actually *used* in the configuration files...

I suspect E.A. isn't 100% aware of the little snafus in sendmail!  :>

--don