On Sun, 2004-10-31 at 10:50, Z wrote: [snip] > Now for the stupid question of the day: Why wasn't the config files > changed to something decent? > Why is it still using cryptic m4 macros to create even more cryptic configs? Um, actually, what makes you say that the m4 macros are cryptic? Now, m4 itself is *extremely* difficult to read and debug if you are writing your own FEATURES, HACKS, or proto.m4 changes, but that's another matter. The whole purpose of using m4, however, is to make life easier...and it certainly does, as features now have meaningful names, instead of stuff like R*&$&^!( And if you *can* do everything with m4 macros (you can't, but almost can), then who really cares what the .cf file looks like? It's no different than compiling a source program getting a binary result. Yes, many would argue that the output looks the same (heh), but if you stick modifying the m4 file, it shouldn't really matter. That said, I believe one of the significant changes in SendmailX is the new config file format. From what I've seen, it looks *much* more readable. I don't know about actual rewriting rulesets, however. I think the changes are aimed more at the everything but the rulesets (map definitions, options, milter definitions, etc.). Given what the rulesets actually do, it's hard to imagine a better way to do it and still maintain the current flexibility. But I could be wrong...that may be changed, too. I have a copy of smX-0.0.16, so I'll take a look. [snip] > Anyone tried commercial sendmail? Is it different? A few years ago, yes, I did. But the codebase is the same, with a few features added strictly for administration, plus the web gui. Nothing to write home about, IMHO. -- -Paul Iadonisi Senior System Administrator Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux. GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
