mail/postfix default build options request: SASL

Gregory Orange at
Tue Jul 7 07:27:00 UTC 2015

On 07/07/15 13:45, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> On 7/07/2015 3:31 PM, Gregory Orange wrote:
>> I don't know if this is a helpful forum to raise it, but I would like to
>> request that SASL be enabled in the default build options for
>> mail/postfix. I am attempting to use binary-only packages wherever
>> possible, and so far this is the first where I currently have to build
>> it myself.
> If consensus can't be achieved or there is a good reason not to enable
> this by default, then postfix-sasl as a slave port may be a desirable
> alternative, which I believe has existed in the past.
>   +1 on security related options enabled by default
>   +1 on OPTIONS_DEFAULT matching upstream defaults
>   -1 on OPTIONS_DEFAULT introducing large dependency sets

I am encouraged to hear there are a couple of different options which 
could be explored. As I have gone and built the package, I have 
discovered that I do not actually use the SASL option, but the DOVECOT2 
option. I now have a couple of questions:

1. What is the difference between DOVECOT{,2} and simply SASL? Is SASL 
actually Cyrus SASL? After reading the Makefile, I'm not sure.

2. If I actually want the DOVECOT2 and not the SASL option, is it likely 
I am going to be able to (advocate for and) get a binary package from 
upstream servers at some point? How can the range of options be handled?


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list