--4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:38:09PM -0500, Rob Healey wrote:
>=20
> On May 30, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Matthias Scheler wrote:
>=20
> >Modified Files:
> >	src/distrib/sets/lists/base: mi
> >	src/distrib/sets/lists/man: mi
> >
> >Log Message:
> >Remove obsolete sendmail manual pages, add postfix manual pages.
>=20
> So does this mean sendmail removal was a political assassination as =20
> opposed to chucking all MTA's from the base in order to make the base =20
> smaller and devoid of any "preferred" MTA's/Mail systems?
>=20
> Seems better to wipe them all and add an additional package, like =20
> compilers, X11, etc. if you want any mail functionality in a NetBSD =20
> installation.

I don't think it was very political. All the developers I am aware of that
are running sendmail (and mentioned it) are using the version from pkgsrc.=
=20
They are doing so as pkgsrc can add things like SASL and other features=20
that won't work in base.

So the sendmail users aren't using sendmail from base, so why keep=20
something that isn't used and can have vulnerabilities (*)?

(*) I know sendmail is much better than it used to be, but even good=20
programs have issues on occasion.

The reason for leaving something in is that the base system needs to be=20
able to at least deliver messages locally, so we need some form of MTA.

Take care,

Bill

--4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFEfgyGWz+3JHUci9cRAu3UAJwP93v9+YFvizy5+yEudfQ6e1ZVcQCfcTiJ
G8jMzbINh9uWuZ+llEwJ6j4=
=4yCg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY--