>> I respectfully disagree.  I personally think Smail is a bit bogus; about 70%
>> of the broken sites I've encountered on the Internet are running Smail (the
>> other 30% are running the stock Sun sendmail configuration, but I digress :-
>) )
>
>Well, I'm not sure I'd agree with that -- I've found fewer problems with
>smail-3 sites (esp. those I've helped set up!) than with most any kind
>of sendmail site....

I guess my biggest complaint is that lots of smail sites don't seem to
handle MX records.  Now people tell me that smail definately _does_ handle
MX records; I believe them, but I've encountered a _lot_ of sites that run
smail that don't!  I guess these sites are mis-configured, and I'm only
noticing the ones that are screwed up, but it sure seems like there are a
lot of them out there :-(  (I don't understand why it's even possible to build
a version of smail that doesn't support MX records!).

>> I don't understand why having sendmail built prevents you from installing
>> another MTA, tho.
>
>Well, take for instance the problems encountered when you do a "cd
>/usr/src; make install" after grabbing a new bunch of sources.  If
>you've installed smail-3 over top of sendmail, then try re-installing
>netbsd from scratch, it'll mess up your MTA, not just over-write it
>(because of the way smail-3 is installed if ported correctly to netbsd,
>that is).
>
>On the other hand, it's trivial to just remove sendmail from
>usr.bin/Makefile and be done with it!  ;-)

I guess this step seemed so obvious to me, I didn't see the problem :-)

--Ken