Re: Import of DragonFly Mail Agent
--NJ5+aVN4Egd/eJfU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 11:26:20PM -0500, Julio Merino wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>wro=
te:
>=20
> > Hi,
> >
> > As some of you may have noticed, I have imorted a couple of days ago dma
> > (DragonFly Mail Agent) in base. I have been asked to explain my motivat=
ion
> > so
> > here they are.
> >
> > DragonFly Mail Agent is a minimalistic mailer that is able to relay mai=
ls
> > to
> > some smtp servers (with TLS, authentication and so on)
> >
> > It supports MASQUERADE and NULLCLIENT, and is able to deliver mails loc=
ally
> > (respecting aliases).
> >
> > I imported it because dma is lightweight, BSD license and easy to use.
> >
> > The code base is rather small and easy to capsicumize (which I plan to =
do)
> >
> > My initial goal is not to replace sendmail.
>=20
>=20
> But is it an eventual goal? *I* don't see why not, but if it is: what's
> the plan? How is the decision to drop sendmail going to be made when the
> time comes? (I.e. who _can_ and will make the call?)
Anyone at anytime can call for this ;) if some bits are missing in dma to
achieve this goal I m willing to implement them.
>=20
>=20
> > All I want is a small mailer
> > simple to configure, and not listening to port 25, suitable for small
> > environment (embedded and/or resource bounded) as well as for server
> > deployment.
> >
>=20
> Playing devil's advocate: what specific problems is this trying to solve?
> I'd argue, for example, that postfix can be also easily configured and c=
an
> be made to not listen on port 25 for local mail delivery, while at the sa=
me
> time it is a fully-functional MTA that could replace sendmail altogether.
> (Which, by the way, is the configuration with which postfix ships within
> the NetBSD base system.)
>=20
> The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have seen NetBSD
> maintain two MTAs (sendmail + postfix) in the base system for _years_ and
> it was not a pretty situation. The eventual removal of sendmail was
> appreciated, but of course it came with the associated bikeshedding.
I do understand that, one of the goal of this mail is also to get feedback =
=66rom
users about what they do expect, is dma fulfilling they normal requirememts=
for
a local mailer in general purpose cases, if yes I do not see a reason not to
remove sendmail from base.
Usual complains about sendmail in base until now has been:
- complex configuration
- long history of security concerns
- no need for a full mta in base
regards,
Bapt
--NJ5+aVN4Egd/eJfU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAlMK9foACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EzHpwCgkfH0rZihkRiwEFJ3XFV0wuYi
6fUAniDcceguqhiMp4/6+ii5Q14I3Y+L
=3BKT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--NJ5+aVN4Egd/eJfU--
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 3 之 64 篇)：