Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 23:10:29 -0700 From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: Gregory Neil Shapiro <gshapiro@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: "Jin Guojun[DSD]" <j_guojun@lbl.gov>, "Crist J. Clark" <cjc@FreeBSD.ORG>, FreeBSD-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: conf/39444: rc.sendmail syntax error: cannot disable sendmail Message-ID: <3D102055.F08DD2AE@FreeBSD.org> References: <3D0FB406.83DE356D@lbl.gov> <20020618155900.O2483-100000@master.gorean.org> <15632.6996.519381.823439@horsey.gshapiro.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gregory Neil Shapiro wrote: > DougB> The problem here is that historically sendmail_enable="NO" always meant > DougB> "don't run a listener for incoming mail, but still let me send mail from > DougB> this host." > > Yes, and that's what I tried to preserve. I think you did a good job on that, don't get me wrong. > DougB> What I think we need is a new knob, something like > DougB> use_real_sendmail, that will default to YES, leaving the new status > DougB> quo for sendmail_enable="NO" intact, but also be able to completely > DougB> disable all sendmail stuff, including listeners for outgoing mail, > DougB> queue runners, etc. That way users can have a clear indication of > DougB> what's going to happen, and the same YES/NO syntax they are familiar > DougB> with. > > If you don't want *any* sendmail daemon running, you can either use: > > sendmail_enable="NONE" > > or > > mta_start_script="" > > I don't see the problem with using one of these methods. The problem is, the users are getting confused. Neither of the methods you describe is "standard," which is a big part of the confusion. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D102055.F08DD2AE>