From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Dec 11 21:04:39 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 E2048E9E8A8 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 21:04:39 +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 B10707920C for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 21:04:38 +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 vBBL5wUr038836; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 13:06:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from portmaster@BSDforge.com) X-Mailer: UDNSMS MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: In-Reply-To: <20171211194511.GD2827@home.opsec.eu> From: "Chris H" Reply-To: portmaster@BSDforge.com To: "Kurt Jaeger" Subject: Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 13:06:04 -0800 Message-Id: <3d6a0f2bf42334313a40264b80aad46b@udns.ultimatedns.net> 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: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 21:04:40 -0000 On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 20:45:11 +0100 "Kurt Jaeger" said > Hi! >=20 > > Let me attempt to make my point another way (and stay closer to topic)=2E > > A user is able to accomplish more from sendmail in base, than with any > > other MX port in base alone=2E > [list of sendmail features shortend for brevity] >=20 > > Many of the other MX software in the ports tree provide a subset of > > the shortlist I mentioned above=2E But none of them offer them all=2E >=20 > So if sendmail is a pkg/port, it would still have those features ? >=20 > Is a >=20 > pkg install sendmail >=20 > such a huge step ? And btw, even if sendmail has all those features, > I can tell you that even when I first attend my first sendmail workshop, > approx=2E 27 years ago, I still would not know how to implement them > with sendmail=2E >=20 > > I were an MX administrator=2E Would I not want all the options/help > > I could get to defend myself against attack? >=20 > I still don't get the difference if sendmail would be a port/pkg=2E >=20 > Oh, btw, if sendmail can do all this, wouldn't it be useful to > have a suitable config that does all this right out of the box ? >=20 > Because, honestly, I would not know how to enable all those features=2E=2E=2E >=20 > > True=2E But if I'm selling a Server targeted OS=2E Don't I want to > > advocate server grade services? >=20 > But the distribution channel of the software for that service > (base or port) does not sound as the relevant factor for the > end-user, or does it ? OK=2E So if I'm understanding this all correctly; All the (FreeBSD) worlds a package=2E So what am I arguing for Sendmail in base for? It makes no sense -- everything's a package=2E Am I getting warmer? :-) If so=2E Then where does it end? How many packages must I install to get a "standard" Server install? I'm going to want cp(1), fsck(8), mkdir(1), gpart(8),=2E=2E=2E Wow! filling /bin/, and /sbin/ will take an awful lot of packages, and I haven't had time to consider /usr/bin/, and /usr/sbin/ ! ;-) As I understand it, the $BASE package is going to amount to what one would expect, and need to get (at least) a usable system=2E IMHO *mail* is an important part of *any* system=2E Oh wait=2E This is intended as part of a simple *desktop* system? Because that's the audience FreeBSD is currently targeting? OK than no *real* need for a robust MX there=2E As they'll likely just be using their ISP for an MX, and only *really* need a MX *client*=2E OK that makes more sense=2E :P I'm only advocating that if $BASE is intended for a reasonable/minimal Server base install=2E That an MX *is* an important part of that definition, and that Sendmail be *that* MX=2E :-) Thanks for playing along, Kurt=2E :-) --Chris P=2ES=2E Indeed=2E Sendmail, *can* be installed as a package, and still work, as I think, can *anything* else=2E But *where* does it all end -- It's *mad* I tell ya! >=20 > --=20 > pi@opsec=2Eeu +49 171 3101372 3 years to= go > !