Subject: Re: sendmail and netbsd
To: Thor Lancelot Simon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Andrew Brown <email@example.com>
Date: 05/01/2000 02:23:53
>I think sendmail's a piece of crap. It's ancient, it's been fixed with
>bailing wire and prayer about a thousand times too many, its performance
>is awful, its configuration syntax is obtuse, and the only reason I know
>of that most people even considered using it as long as they did was that
>there was no reasonable alternative.
meanwhile...i like it and i've tamed the savage beast. the
configuration file is only obtuse to those that don't understand it.
think of it like a device drive for an ethernet card written in
assembly language as viewed by someone who has only coded in basic.
it's *bound* to look obtuse.
>Postfix looks like a pretty darned reasonable alternative to me, but
>unfortunately while we failed to include it in our OS, and thus lost
>whatever leverage we might have had, its license became unacceptable,
so take an older revision and start from that? that *was* what weitse
had in mind in the first place anyway...that people would take what he
put out and run with it (in possibly different directions).
>What it boils down to is that there's *no* acceptably-licensed, modern
>mailer available. Given that sendmail's license is among the most
>objectionable, and its quality is so low, I wish we would ship just
>about anything *else*...
just like the c compiler or the tool chain, i'd expect. i happen to
think that sendmail's fine and i have no great desire to relearn how
to do everything that i'm currently doing with sendmail in another
package. while the issues with the licence have been referred to as
objectionable, no one has yet given me an objective comparison of the
licences in question.
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
firstname.lastname@example.org * "ah! i see you have the internet
email@example.com (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
firstname.lastname@example.org * "information is power -- share the wealth."