Subject: Re: "sendmail" configuration file issue should be fixed
To: Brett Lymn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Johnny Billquist <email@example.com>
Date: 06/11/2006 19:08:02
Brett Lymn wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 06:11:54PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>So I still stand by the reasoning that if you want a mail daemon, you
>>should install it yourself, you cannot depend on what's in base.
> There is a MTA in base, it may not be the one that you are used to or
> like but there is one there. As was the case before, you are free to
> install whatever MTA you like then only difference now is that the
> people who want sendmail fall into this group whereas before they didn't.
The difference is larger than you try to make it look here.
>>So, why have any?
> Basically, your position is that the MTA must be sendmail or nothing.
No, you are missing the point.
Replacing one tool with another will cause headaches for people who used
to use the old one. And we're talking about something that have been in
there since the start of NetBSD.
If we feel free to switch tools depending on the current trends or
views, we are in effect creating a system where you cannot rely on the
base system at all to have a specific environment.
That in turn leads to the conclusion that you'd better install anything
you want to depend on yourself, and not trust base, because base is a
That is the point I'm trying to make, and people can feel as insulted as
they want. My intention is not to insult anyone, but to question the
wiseness of starting to adapt to whatever the current trend is.
This goes in the same vein as replacing sh with bash, setting bash as
the default shell for root and a number of similar issues that I think
I've seen starting to surface.
And also, in my view, this feels like an attempt to start mimicking
Linux. Why, the next step might be to not only drop the daemon logo, but
to drop the "BSD" moniker totally.
Is this even a BSD system in the future, or are we driving towards Linux
All people might not think that csh is the greatest shell on earth, and
so on for a number of different tools and things, but what defines BSD?
Is it just a name, or is it also a view on the system, and a history
behind why things are the way they are, and a recognition that some
people think this is better?
Do it have to be what the majority in the world currently thinks is hip?
Sorry if I'm rambling, and throwing a bunch of silly questions around,
and I'm also sorry if I offend people. Like I said, I'm not out to
offend anyone, but I'd like to put the finger on issues that I might
have, that I may not agree fully with the decisions taken.
And I do think there is a point in questioning what else might be
dropped in the future, because someone might actually depend on that
subsystem as well, and might be bitten. I'm aware that it's hard to tell
what the future will be in detail, but people have opinions on which
direction things should move.
> A lot of people don't care about what the MTA is as long as the mail
> gets delivered. There is still an expectation on a unix system that
> there will be an operational MTA for programs to use, -current has a
> MTA to do this job.
If you don't care about the MTA, you'll probably only do mail locally
anyway, in which case a full-blown MTA is overkill. Otherwise most
people are doing changes to the configuration, which means they both
care about the MTA, and also might not have such an easy time to just
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: firstname.lastname@example.org || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol