From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Dec 21 04:35:08 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 746E1E9E600 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 04:35:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ted@io-tx.com) Received: from io-tx.com (io-tx.com [209.198.147.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.io-tx.com", Issuer "AlphaSSL CA - SHA256 - G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48FF674677; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 04:35:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ted@io-tx.com) Received: from io-tx.com (io-tx.com [209.198.147.18]) (authenticated bits=0) by io-tx.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id vBL4Z2AE033422 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 20 Dec 2017 22:35:02 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ted@io-tx.com) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 22:35:02 -0600 (CST) From: Ted Hatfield To: Kevin Oberman cc: Matthias Andree , Sunpoet Po-Chuan Hsieh , FreeBSD Ports ML , Eugene Grosbein Subject: Re: Procmail got updated! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <5A39F7C9.1030800@grosbein.net> <05504d3c-3225-e83f-8f10-225319421a35@gmx.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (BSF 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at io-tx.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 on io-tx.com tests=ALL_TRUSTED, AWL, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 user=root X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on io-tx.com 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: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 04:35:08 -0000 On Wed, 20 Dec 2017, Kevin Oberman wrote: > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Matthias Andree > wrote: > >> Am 20.12.2017 um 06:40 schrieb Eugene Grosbein: >>> On 20.12.2017 01:03, Matthias Andree wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Ted, Eugene, >>> [skip] >>> >>> What happened with old good "Tools, not policy" thing? >>> >>> >> >> It's simpler than that, no policy involved. >> >> The tool had a hollow head, and broke after several years of banging it, >> and the former tool maker told the public it's out of warranty (never >> was in due to it being free) and not being fixed any more, and should be >> scrapped. >> > > It still works (painfully) and is used by many. They would be wise to > stop, but it is not the job of the project to force them to do so, > > I do think that a pkg-message with "Here there be dragons! Proceed at your > own risk. dropmail is a MUCH safer (and easier) path." would be > appropriate. I don't think it is the job of the project to force people to > replace it if they think they know what they are doing. Of course, bitrot > or similar may take it before long. > -- > Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer > E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com > PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683 I still use sendmail/procmail for all of my systems. If it's up to a vote I would vote to keep procmail as a valid port. That being said I am not a port maintainer and I wouldn't presume to tell them what to maintain as I am not the one doing the actual work. However based upon my experience I am betting that there are a lot of systems still out there that are still using procmail. I think if you choose to drop support for procmail you should do as Kevin suggests and give a warning and a firm date when support will stop. This will give people a chance to update their systems appropriately. Ted Hatfield