Re: mailwrapper

Don't know about other MTAs but the most common, Postfix, doesn't need
mailwrapper any more than does Sendmail.

Roger



> On 2024-04-15 14:08, Roger Marquis wrote:
>>> i am working on a patch for mailwrapper, which i'd like to move from
>>> FreeBSD-utilities to its own package.
>> 
> ..
>> 
>> Please don't, however, link anything to sendmail.  Even it's author says
>> sendmail should be deprecated.  Despite the many hours some of us have
>> put into sendmail.cf customizations this software is long past its
>> effective deprecation date.
> Please. Can we not turn this into a MTA v. MTA discussion?
> Mailwrapper should handle all the MTAs supported by FreeBSD. Shouldn't
> it? That's what it's used for. Right? :)
>
> --Chris
>> 
>> Roger Marquis
>> 
>> 
>>> however i'm a little stymied by usr.sbin/mailwrapper/Makefile[0], which
>>> seems to do a few fairly odd things for the benefit of src users, such as
>>> linking mailwrapper to either dma or sendmail if mailwrapper itself isn't
>>> built.
>>> 
>>> i'd like to significantly simplify the logic here so that if mailwrapper 
>>> is
>>> enabled (${MK_MAILWRAPPER} == yes), it's always installed in the usual
>>> place, and doesn't pretend to be dma or sendmail, and there is no special
>>> handling depending on the value of ${MK_SENDMAIL} and ${MK_DMAGENT}.
>>> 
>>> this might require some changes to either sendmail or dma (which of course
>>> i'd test before submitting anything), but in principle, does this sound
>>> like a reasonable idea?
>>> 
>>> i am concious that many/most people don't use pkgbase yet and we shouldn't
>>> break things for them, but this seems like an ideal to time to clean up
>>> some of this legacy stuff.
>>> 
>>> [0] https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/tree/usr.sbin/mailwrapper/Makefile
>>> 
>
>