Why isn't Sendmail standard (was: make anacron a base package)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:21:28 -0500, Jonathan P Tomer wrote:
>the low-priority console-tools is better) or exim (because sendmail is
>cooler, imho... btw, why isn't it the default mailer for debian? deviating
>from de facto standards without a good reason isn't really wise... and none
>of that 'easier to configure' stuff either. sendmail.mc is -far- shorter
>than exim.conf or whatever it's called, and that's all that needs to be
>toyed with 90% of the time, due to the glories of m4 and the hard work of
>sendmail maintainers).
I run Exim at home, I had to run Sendmail at work. Here's the
difference. I can do pretty much anything I want with Exim by just looking
through the configuration file. If that doesn't help, then I go to the docs.
Meanwhile I *HAVE* read the Bat book and am utterly frustrated with the
configuration, even the M4 configuration, of sendmail. It is esoteric,
utterly incomprehensible, overly complex and utterly useless. Why anyone
would *WANT* to use Sendmail is beyond me. Furhter, how sendmail.com figures
they can put Sendmail into an appliance is also beyond me because they would
have to rewrite the entire configuration to be usable before doing that.
They haven't done it yet, I doubt they ever will.
- --
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- -------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc
iQA/AwUBNwGTT3pf7K2LbpnFEQJtyQCg8vyVtN+gUM+vCbJQwpgvl4lj2Y0An1mm
NwRPM+iQBeQZ8yxv3s+eZjKR
=MqVO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: