On Thursday 24 February 2005 15:42, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 03:04:40PM -0500, Richard June wrote: > > On Thursday 24 February 2005 14:53, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 11:45:15AM -0800, Kenneth Porter wrote: > > > > There seems to be a lot of dissatisfaction with sendmail in the call > > > > to replace it with Exim or Postfix, but I didn't see any specifics > > > > about why people object to it. Anyone care to give details? > > > > > > Most of the discusion has been about what should be the default. For > > > "newbies" sendmail can be a pain to configure. It's documentation > > > leaves something to be desired, and the default sendmail.cf file isn't > > > all that helpful. > > > > > > That's not to say that sendmail isn't useful or does't work properly. > > > It does. But if a package is going to be the default for a > > > distribution, it should also be fairly simple for new users to > > > configure and adapt to. > > > > I take issue to that. sendmail has always been *TONS* easier for me to > > configure then postfix/exim. the sendmail.mc file is simple to understand > > and edit. > > I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Anything that requires using m4 > after editing a config file isn't intuitive IMHO. edit the config file, run service sendmail restart. all done. you don't have to run m4 manually, the sendmail initscript does that for you. -- Public Key available Here: http://www.bravegnuworld.com/~rjune/pubkey.asc
Attachment:
pgpv8H6GyQPSh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
