From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 22 21:33:02 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E962106568F for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:33:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-current-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: from mail8.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail8.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0775B8FC19 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:33:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 7404 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2009 21:33:01 -0000 Received: from dsl092-078-145.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO be-well.ilk.org) ([66.92.78.145]) (envelope-sender ) by mail8.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 22 Sep 2009 21:33:01 -0000 Received: by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix, from userid 1147) id 2DD59508B0; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:33:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Lowell Gilbert To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Gregory Shapiro References: <20090921112657.GW95398@hoeg.nl> <20090922135435.36a3d40e@lazybytes.org> <4AB90448.9020706@FreeBSD.org> <19e9a5dc0909221014o14e88c96ubf32142b85d781d@mail.gmail.com> <20090922173517.GB63149@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20090922200449.GL19207@rugsucker.local> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:33:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090922200449.GL19207@rugsucker.local> (Gregory Shapiro's message of "Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:04:49 -0700") Message-ID: <44vdja1x83.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Subject: Re: BIND in the base (Was: Re: tmux(1) in base) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:33:02 -0000 Gregory Shapiro writes: >> I suppose it doesn't matter to you that sendmail is actually >> maintained by Greg Shapiro, VP, CTO of Sendmail, Inc. > > While I appreciate the vote of confidence, it doesn't, and it shouldn't. > I'll continue to maintain sendmail in the base as long as it is welcome > there. If the project wants it moved out, that is not up to me (though > I hope it stays). There's also the Principle of Least Astonishment. The pain of any change would be substantial (albeit short-lived). > I haven't spent a lot of time looking at DMA, but some requirements that > pop to mind for it to be a replacement would be things like accepting > local mail via SMTP (e.g., for MUAs which use SMTP submission) and > supporting STARTTLS and SMTP AUTH for talking to the upstream MTA. The point of DMA is that it does the absolute minimum needed to get a workable system. That *minimum* is really just delivering locally generated mail somewhere else, primarily to make sure root's cron e-mails go somewhere. To actually receive mail, another MTA would always be needed. STARTTLS and TLS/SSL do seem to be supported, and enough virtusertable functionality to get the from addresses replyable. None of which should be interpreted as an opinion on my part. I will only develop (much less express) an opinion if absolutely pressed. Be well.