Paul Iadonisi wrote:
Now for the stupid question of the day: Why wasn't the config files changed to something decent?On Sun, 2004-10-31 at 04:23, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
[snip]
Even if the sendmail codebase finaly reached the quality of its
competitors that's no reason to inflict sendmail conf files on users.
Heh.
I eat sendmail rulesets for breakfast. ;-)
Never saw anyone use 'inflict' when talking about sendmail conf
files. But I guess that's appropos. The best description I've heard of
them is that they look like line noise.
Why is it still using cryptic m4 macros to create even more cryptic configs?
Oh, and 'quality' may be overstating it a bit. I've seen coreThe ugly rumor that I heard is that parts of the codebase are too messy for an audit. It passed the point
sendmail developers mention things like sendmail being full of hacks
(that's ugly hacks, not cool hacks). SendmailX is rewritten from the
ground up, with lessons learned in mind. We'll have to wait and see how
well that takes off.
of "rewrite is less work than fixing" a long time ago.
Anyone tried commercial sendmail? Is it different?
