From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Thu Dec 7 04:16:18 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@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 4194AE9BC13 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 04:16:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B4A774B10 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 04:16:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 2AA51E9BC12; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 04:16:18 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: arch@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 2A4A7E9BC11 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 04:16:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mx2.catspoiler.org (mx2.catspoiler.org [IPv6:2607:f740:16::d18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "amnesiac", Issuer "amnesiac" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B16874B0F; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 04:16:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (gw.catspoiler.org [75.1.14.242]) by mx2.catspoiler.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id vB74GIKx023717 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 7 Dec 2017 04:16:20 GMT (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mousie.catspoiler.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2]) by gw.catspoiler.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id vB74G9Et001409 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 6 Dec 2017 20:16:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 20:16:04 -0800 (PST) From: Don Lewis Subject: Re: RFC: Sendmail deprecation ? To: Baptiste Daroussin cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, gshapiro@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <20171206223341.iz3vj4zz2igqczy7@ivaldir.net> Message-ID: References: <20171206223341.iz3vj4zz2igqczy7@ivaldir.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-Disposition: INLINE X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 04:16:18 -0000 On 6 Dec, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to propose the deprecation then removal of sendmail in base. > > Deprecation will happen in the form of FreeBSD 12.0 being built WITHOUT_SENDMAIL > by default > > removal would happen in FreeBSD 13.0 > > sendmail in base it not really usable as a full featured mta due to the fact it > does not support anything an entreprised grade mta setup would require: ldap > support for example, check the number of options available in the sendmail port. > > Users for that use case would be better served by the port version of sendmail. > > The other kind of users are the one using the default setup of sendmail: > relaying emails externally and deliver locally. I've found that sendmail in base meets my needs. I haven't had the need for any of the features that are only available in the port. It doesn't looks like dma(8) would be useful for me on my primary machines since I basically need its inverse. It would only be useful on my headless machines to forward cron-generated mail to my mail server. I don't do any local delivery of mail to mbox files. My mail server delivers all mail to cyrus-imapd via lmtp, which is a fairly simple tweak to the sendmail.mc file. I also have a couple of mail relays that do some smart routing and spam filtering. One thing that is comes with sendmail in base but is missing from the sendmail port is all the handy stuff in /etc/mail, such as the freebsd.mc template, the aliases file, and the Makefile which makes maintaining the config files and the .db files much easier. Without this stuff, setting up the sendmail port would be much more intimidating.