Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:54:54 -0700 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> To: bsd-lists@BSDforge.com Cc: Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu>, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check Message-ID: <81316CF1-E914-4306-9F37-A444447ECABD@adamw.org> In-Reply-To: <b31baf3a5907410dfbe026ee4e02b67c@udns.ultimatedns.net> References: <b31baf3a5907410dfbe026ee4e02b67c@udns.ultimatedns.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 8 Dec, 2017, at 20:11, Chris H <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 02:59:28 +0100 "Kurt Jaeger" <lists@opsec.eu> said > >> Hi! >> > > > First, there is movement afoot to remove sendmail from FreeBSD and >> > > > replace it with dma(1). >> > Hmm. This does not come as good news to me. I've been working on an >> antispam >> > system that targets the use of Sendmail, >> If sendmail is available via ports, wouldn't that be enough ? > Thanks for the reply, Kurt. > Perhaps. Haven't tried it yet (means even more work). :( > But hopefully. > I thought all my work would have been more valuable, given that Sendmail > was installed by default in FreeBSD. Disappointing, but perhaps still > doable. > Time will tell. Hi Chris, I’d argue that if your work loses value if sendmail is removed from base (suggesting that users wouldn’t choose sendmail when given an option from ports), then that suggests that sendmail isn’t the right thing to include in base. Base should ship with the thing that we expect the majority of users to WANT to choose. Clearly there are many users who still prefer sendmail. Your work still has value! # Adam -- Adam Weinberger adamw@adamw.org http://www.adamw.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?81316CF1-E914-4306-9F37-A444447ECABD>