Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 19:01:56 -0600 (CST) From: Christopher Farley <chris@northernbrewer.com> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Postfix vs. Sendmailkj Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012011852060.7034-100000@kraeusen.nbrewer.com> In-Reply-To: <14888.12038.601774.446919@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Mike Meyer wrote: > FreeBSD has solved this problem for any MTA that provides a sendmail > command API. You edit /etc/mail/mailer.conf so it points at that MTAs > version of sendmail (and mailq, and newaliases, for that matter), and > the binaries installed where programs look for > sendmail/mailq/newaliases will do the right thing. Ahhhh. When I installed Sendmail by hand, I followed their instructions and installed the sendmail binary in /usr/sbin. I never realized that the sendmail in /usr/sbin is just a symlink to mailwrapper! So the *actual* sendmail binary, in /usr/libexec/sendmail/, remained. I am not sure, but I suspect that 'make world' restores the sendmail-->mailwrapper symlink, regardless of whether 'NO_SENDMAIL' is set in make.conf... This would make sense, since mailwrapper is, in theory, completely unrelated to sendmail. So I've heard people complain about mailwrapper before... Are there any security benefits to using mailwrapper, or is it (as the manpages say) just a convenience for those installing alternative MTAs? As a rule of thumb, should you never mess with /usr/bin or /usr/sbin? ---- Christopher Farley Northern Brewer / 1150 Grand Avenue / St. Paul, MN 55105 www.northernbrewer.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0012011852060.7034-100000>