Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

[Gonzalo Nemmi]

On Tuesday 27 October 2009 7:31:34 pm Jerry McAllister wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 05:03:12PM -0200, Gonzalo Nemmi wrote:
> > On Tuesday 27 October 2009 4:32:45 pm Erik Norgaard wrote:
> > > Jonathan McKeown wrote:
> > > > Just as a matter of interest, if you want to rip sendmail out
> > > > of the base system, which MTA would you like to replace it
> > > > with? Or are you suggesting the system ship with no way to
> > > > handle mail?
> > >
> > > This thread moving of topic from OP, but it is always fair to
> > > debate what should be considered a base system. Is an MTA a
> > > requirement or a remnant from history?
> >
> > Dear Erik:
> >
> > Contrary to your belief the thread isn't moving of topic from OP,
> > it's just taking the same default route it has been taking for
> > ages: 1) telling the OP the OS needs an MTA
> > 2) telling the OP he can replace the default MTA
> > 3) telling the OP he can remove given MTA from base
> > 4) telling the OP about "historical reason"
> > 5) Not telling the OP why has FreeBSD has left so many historical
> > reason behind to persuit new goals but retained Sendmail as the
> > default MTA "for historical reasons".
> >
> > Sorry .. but that's the way it goes every time someone asks the
> > same question.
>
> I will add one more that covers it best.
> Sendmail works just fine and there is no ACTUAL CURRENT reason to
> get rid of it.    Years ago it had some weaknesses which have been
> fixed.

I wonder what would have happened if Sir Isaac Newton followed the same 
line of though ...

Or maybe there was an ACTUAL CURRENT reason to develop infinitesimal 
calculus ... which .. of course, by that time, nobody knew it even 
existed.

Or maybe there was an ACTUAL CURRENT reason to discover the law of 
universal gravitation ... 

Or maybe .. not ...

> So, that leaves personal preference as the only real reason
> for wanting to replace it.

Let me get this straight .. that means that  every Linux distro, NetBSD, 
OpenBSD and DragonFlyBSD are all doing it just out of personal 
preference?

> In that case, if your personal preference is to replace it, go ahead.
> There are several candidates and an earlier post described well how
> to do it.

Yes, that has already been pointed out quite a few times.

> As for putting it in ports and taking it out of base, well, some
> message system is often needed before ports are installed.  Sendmail
> fills the bill.    Some other could also, but since Sendmail works
> just fine and is already there, then it is.

Fit the bill ...  well.. so did the Geocentric model .. and it actually 
did work just as fine .. and even better yet since it also mantained 
the "status quo" ! ... but then Galileo came and you know the rest of 
the story ...

> ////jerry

Best Regards
Gonzalo Nemmi

> > > And if an MTA is a requirement then asking which one is the best
> > > choice is also a fair question. An equally fair answer could be
> > > whichever change requires the least work.
> >
> > Indeed
> >
> > > No different than asking, why is NIS still in the base? Why no
> > > ldap? why BIND, but no http? Why NFS? etc...
> >
> > Let me save you the trouble; the answer to mot of that questions
> > will be: historical reasons and that other solutions can "can only
> > dream of enjoying a fraction of the respect that BIND and Sendmail
> > command in the industry"
> >
> > Believe it or not ...
> >
> > > I think the only void answer is because of tradition, that just
> > > seems to show that noone really remembers why some choice was
> > > made.
> > >
> > > BR, Erik
> >
alo Nemmi