From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Dec 31 14:06:35 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA25156 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 14:06:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from schizo.cdsnet.net (schizo.cdsnet.net [204.118.244.32]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA25149 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 14:06:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mrcpu@internetcds.com) Received: from localhost (mrcpu@localhost) by schizo.cdsnet.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA16497 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 14:02:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 14:02:12 -0800 (PST) From: Jaye Mathisen X-Sender: mrcpu@schizo.cdsnet.net To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Postfix discussion. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG While I don't dispute for a minute that postfix offers numerous advantages over sendmail, (having dumped sendmail for qmail a long time ago...), I do not recall seeing a valid reason why it just can't be a port. If in the future, it is decided that postfix should be the mailer of choice, fine, axe sendmail, bring in postfix, be happy. I don't see us running bind4 and bind8 side-by-side, and I don't see us running vim and vi side-by-side... and the other too numerous to mention lists of software where ports exceed or surpass the main tree software in functionality, speed, or features... or any other criteria. I don't see any reason to start now. I believe the goal is laudable, but like aout-to-elf and other decisions of this type, cut the cord, and switch... Heck, go cold turkey the other way. Don't install any mailer, and make the user install a port of exim, qmail, sendmail, or postfix as they see fit. :) Do the same with the shells and interpreters, and really streamline that install process. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message