mail gui

[Paul Iadonisi]

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