Re: Questions regarding lsb-invalid-mta
On 06/26/2013 08:50 AM, Aaron Sowry wrote:
> If we get rid of lsb-invalid-mta, and make "default-mta |
> mail-transport-agent" a dependency of lsb-core as you say, then people
> who have removed exim4 after installation are going to get it installed
> for them again, including an active SMTP daemon, when they install
> lsb-core. This is fine, however, either one of the following must be
> true:
>
> 1) The lsb-invalid-mta package description is correct; having an active
> SMTP daemon introduces a hideous and unnecessary attack vector, Linux
> machines don't belong in server halls anymore, they don't have static IP
> addresses, and everyone uses Gmail and Hotmail anyway.
>
> or:
>
> 2) Debians default behaviour is correct; having an active SMTP daemon is
> sufficiently useful, safe and common that we should install it by
> default on all systems.
>
> If 1) is true, then we need a package which provides sendmail without
> installing an SMTP daemon. If 2) is true, then your solution mentioned
> above is fine. However, they can't both be true.
If you ask me, lsb-invalid-mta's package description is basically the
opinion of (some developers at) Canonical, and statement 2 is the
correct one.
We had a recent discussion about switching the default MTA in
debian-devel, with very little to show for it:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/06/msg00010.html
So I think we can take Debian's current behavior re: MTA as a given.
Reply to: