Re: make anacron a base package
Josip Rodin <joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr> writes:
> > First of all, this is an invalid comparison because some could have
> > comments, others not.
>
> In case you haven't noticed, the grep removes all lines with hashes,
> that is, comments. And empty lines IIRC.
Right, I missed that.
> > Secondly, few people edit their .cf files
> > directly anymore. I for one have never had to, despite very strange
> > mail configurations.
>
> Yes, but person I was replying to was mentioning the exim.conf file.
> This was just to prove that exim.conf is actually a lot smaller and
> more appropriate for in place editing.
No, you're not making a valid comparison. You're comparing a file
used by the end-user (exim.conf) to what is basically an internal data
file these days (sendmail.cf). You ought to compare exim.conf to
sendmail.mc.
> Sendmail's .mc files are nice, too, but still less readable to a new
> user than exim.conf. Well, you could say that this is only my opinion,
> but...
How is it less readable?
> > And again, what does this show? Sendmail has been around a LOT longer
> > than exim. a LOT.
>
> I know that very well. Still, new bugs and security flaws in sendmail
> are being discovered these days. One would think that with software
> *that* tested, it would have to be more bug-free? Apparently, not with
> sendmail.
Urmm, wait, how does the fact that people find bugs make it more
buggy? This is very flawed logic. Perhaps the fact that so very
many, many more people are using sendmail and poking at it on a daily
basis means that there are more people to find bugs when they arise?
You are trying to reduce this to a game of numbers. But the fact is
that the story is much more complex than a few greps.
> Exim is getting more and more users (and Debian is helping that),
> but still, it only had one high urgency and one medium urgency upload.
again, this says nothing. Exim has been around a lot less than
sendmail. Far fewer people are looking for exim bugs. You haven't
even mentioned why there were high or medium-urgency uploads for
either MTA.
> I have also heard lot of bad things about him and his qmail, however,
> that document is not about qmail.
That very URL (having "maildisasters" and "sendmail" in it) shows me
that he is not doing an objective analysis, so I don't see why I need
to waste my time reading something prejudiced.
> > And what about sendmail.mc? Is it really that hard to read? Really
> > now, it's pretty easy.
>
> It is. Again, we come to the point where I say that exim.conf is *more*
> readable. Darn. Degustibus non est disputandum.
And what makes it more readable? And is this difference really
significant? And if so, why?
Reply to: