Date: 9 Apr 1997 14:51:31 GMT From: peter@spinner.DIALix.COM (Peter Wemm) To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sendmail in 2.2 Message-ID: <860597491.656387@haywire.DIALix.COM> References: <199704061600.MAA22131@lakes.water.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <199704061600.MAA22131@lakes.water.net>,
ponds!rivers@dg-rtp.dg.com (Thomas David Rivers) writes:
>>
>> From: proff@suburbia.net
>> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 19:43:16 +1000 (EST)
>>
>> My gee-whiz qmail auto-everything port has been in
>> ftp.FreeBSD.org:/pub/FreeBSD/incoming for a while now (hint);
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Julian.
>>
>> Are we ready for religious wars? I certainly think that qmail should be
>> an optional MTA for freebsd (if it can't be the default). Admittedly,
>> you have to do things 'differently' with qmail, but arguably, the
>> 'different' way is the way it should always have been.
>>
>> Let the people decide! If the port already exists, why isn't it in there?
>>
>> -mark
>>
>
> Ok - I'm ready to be convinced (I've hacked on sendmail enough to
> think "there's got to be an easier way.")
>
> I've got several machines all networked together on a private network;
> mail goes out/comes in on one of the machines via a UUCP connection.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Each user has a .forward which sends the mail to their own machine
> (a reasonable approach on a small network.) Also, there are two Win/95
> machines I'd like to add to this...
>
> Can qmail handle it, and, if so, how do I set it up?
>
> - Dave Rivers -
Last time I checked, I got the impression that qmail didn't support
uucp-style addressing. I think there was a way of using uucp if you
used BSMTP style encapsulation of messages rather than rmail style.
Mind you, I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing, unless you happen
to be on the back end of an rmail stytle mail feed. IMHO, uucp ! syntax
needs to die.
-Peter
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?860597491.656387>