Re: sendmail&smart host
Aha, thanx for the explanation. I am an experianced SuSE administrator and I
feel pretty firm in the sendmail.cf. I start prefering debian now (as a
Server ;-) - but I miss the documentation... It took me hours to find out,
that the configuratuion of procmail in the sendmail.cf is missing. After I
tried OSTYPE(mklinux) I was very happy to find the sendmail.cf I am used to.
In SuSE the linux.mc is well documented and very easy to handle. Also it is
new to me to build the sendmail.cf with make - I am used to 'm4 < linux.mc >
test.cf'
OK, I take the hint and try it with OSTYPE(debian).
martin
Richard A Nelson wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Martin Tanzer wrote:
>
> > > > I changed in /etc/mail/sendmail.mc:
> > > >
> > > > OSTYPE(mklinux)dnl
> > >
> > > while ( ! nauseated ) { print "Don't do this" };
> >
> > hmmm. Why?
>
> sigh, I'm sorry - I hate it when people do that to me... I meant to
> come back and fill that in before hitting `send' (too much
> multi-tasking, not enough swap space).
>
> Executive summary:
> OSTYPE(xxx) is where paths/directories specific to an OS are defined.
> Using the wrong xxx is recipe for disaster.
>
> The longer version:
> OSTYPE(debian) is eventually going away, but for the nonce, it contains
> a boatload of stuff specific to the Debian build of sendmail - the most
> important of which are the paths to files/directories used by sendmail.
>
> Now, some of those paths are compiled into sendmail, and some aren't -
> in general, leaving out an entry isn't too bad, but putting one in will
> override the compiled in defaults.
>
> The net effect, is that mklinux (and others) defines files/dirs to be
> in places that probably aren't built by the Debian package ! The
> results range from harmless to catastrophic - depending upon which
> file/dir is mismarked.
>
> Does that make more sense?
> --
> Rick Nelson
> Techical solutions are not a matter of voting. Two legislations in the US
> states almost decided that the value of Pi be 3.14, exactly. Popular vote
> does not make for a correct solution.
> -- Manoj Srivastava
Reply to: