Re: [proofreading] Re: Initscripts management proposal
On Fri, 18 Feb 2000, Hugo.van.der.Kooij@caiw.nl wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>> > > Thats a beautiful example. You want to start some kind of mail service before
>> > > you run inn and it goes off to mail you about how your config file sucks, you
>> > > dont care which
>> >
>> > inn is use(less)net and not mail.
>>
>> Never, and I thought it washed underpants!
>>
>> inn relies on mail services running, reread what I said. If your mail service
>> isnt up inn can't email you helpful complaints as it runs. You know the
>> 10,000 pages of summaries show that alt.sex.bondage.pensioner.sheep is the
>> top read ISP news group - the ones you delete from the news account weekly
>
>When I said I wanted to get rid of sendmail as name for the service I
>indicated I might want to install postfix instead of sendmail in my very
>own distribution.
>
As i se the question, we have to deal also with a well fixed tradition. In this
particular case, sendmail is just traditional, and it is hard to change this.
Naturally i fully agree with the login of this proposal, but sometimes to be
conservative could semplify things for a lot of reasons.
>Just like you said that the name apache was not fit to indicate a http
>server but it should be called httpd. For the same reason is it unsound to
>call a smtp server sendmail when in fact it isn't send mail at all.
>
>I'm aware there may be plenty of services depending on an operational smtp
>server. So why the example of inn would justify the use of sendmail over
>smtpd is just beyond me. (And that's why I point out that you should not
>trust inn with your underpants ;-)
i would say, the example of inn was right, but i am starting from a different
point of view.
there is a lot of software that is calling directly "sendmail", ok with time
this will be updated, but what is difficould to update is mentality of system
managers. That is why you cannot put together apache, because from
the beginning this daemon was called hpptd, and sendmail, that since years has
imposed a de-facto standard, or as i would prefer to say a tradition.
>The use of /usr/lib/sendmail as binary by all mail packages does not
>constitute enough reason to warrant the usage of sendmail as a name for
>your favorite 'pick of the month' smtp/email server.
that is true, but if every kind of unix traditionally comes with sendmail, to
impose this kind of change is just to make things more complicate. So we should
make distinction case from case, and be flexible with our logic.
Luigi Genoni
Reply to: