Subject: Re: Rmail queues everything?
To: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
From: Ken Hornstein <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/03/1994 16:38:27
>> 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,
>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 :-)