Subject: Re: Postfix
To: Paul Hoffman <email@example.com>
From: Pete Naylor <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/13/2000 15:15:09
Paul Hoffman wrote...
> At 11:59 PM -0700 8/12/00, Pete Naylor wrote:
> >I understand. One suggestion I might have would be to offer several
> >different MTAs as packages, and document the download and install of the
> >preferred one as part of the OS install.
> I don't think this will fly: it makes the installation much harder
> because the admin then needs to take a second step.
That would depend on the ease with which the package can be installed. I
don't see how it would make the install any more difficult than it already
is, actually. In fact, it could be a simple install option.
> > Still, I'd be perfectly happy to
> >have sendmail continue to be included (though not listening on the SMTP
> >port by default).
> Very good point! If we want the system to function out of the box, we
> need an SMTP *sending* system, not a receiving one. This leads to a
> higher level of security because there is one less port being
> listened on by bloatware. Of course, we could ship postfix the same
> way, but (as is pointed out many times) it isn't IPv6 yet.
More mature software is IPv6 aware - but I don't see anything other than
postfix being "evaluated". Unfortunately someone who happens to like
postfix decided that it is the wonder-MTA, and should replace the basic
tool which many administrators are familiar with and be distributed to
every site which uses NetBSD whether they like/want postfix or not.
The defacto standard status of sendmail is a real liability. Too bad some
NetBSD developers are moving to push a replacement defacto standard upon
all NetBSD users instead of encouraging choice among a diverse selection.
Later, when postfix is no longer MTA du jour among those who seem to make
such decisions, we'll go through all the same silliness again.