Re: suggested virtual package name: dns-server
Toni Mueller <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 10:27:14AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
>> also because they share a significant bit of infrastructure (/etc/alias,
>> /var/spool/mail) which would be damn hard to deal with in any sort of
>> automated fashion, *and* because the value of doing so (i.e. not very
>> many people have any use for multiple simultaneous MTAs).
<Nitpick> s%spool/%% since policy 126.96.36.199.</Nitpick>
> Sorry, but for the case of MTAs I disagree. Yes, policy demands that
> the mailboxes are stored under /var/spool/mail (which I happen to
> disagree with, too),
Why? Having a predifined location for the inbox a requirement if you
are using MUAs that access the spoolfile(s) directly (mutt, pine, etc.)
and /var/mail is the location the FHS suggests.
Actually afaics /var/mail is no problem for installing different MTAs
at the same time, it is not owned by any MTA but generated by
base-files. And if you locate your mailboxes there, they have to be in
standard UNIX mailbox format (FHS) and are only accessed with proper
> but I wouldn't vouch for the requirement of
> /etc/alias and the like.
/etc/aliases is no problem either, it is just kind of messy because
there is no central "policy" on what aliases should be in the in there
per default. /etc/aliases is not owned by any package.
Imho the real problem is port 25. Afaik the infrastructure for
installing two programs that might use the same port on debian is
missing: There is no "/dev/port/25 alternative" - no canonical
policy-conform possibility for daemonA to disable daemonB on
installation. (You cannot call invoke-rc.d -f remove ;-)
> What we _can_ agree on is the value of having multiple MTAs on one
Just out of curiosity, could you name some examples?