Why is sendmail bad?

[Richard June]

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20050225/9b962ec7/attachment.sig>