How to SMTP (Email) Server Fedora 6?

[Les Mikesell]

Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:

> So you are saying that the configuration should be changed to one
> that helps a few people of the people that want to run a mail
> server, while making it harder the people that do not need it, and
> makes no difference to most people that are going to run a mail
> server.

No, I'm saying it should be easy to make it do what you want in the same 
way RH/fedora configurations make it easy to use other network services 
like sshd without having to write your own configuration or edit one 
that was built to make a network service not use the network.

 > It makes more sense to have a configuration that works for
> most people.

"Most" people were only using linux for servers back when this setup was 
created.  Regardless, that's not the point.  Some people need a real 
name server, some need a caching version, some don't need any.  You can 
accommodate all of those choices with RedHat-style packaging and commands.

 > And it does work for most machines that are not mail
> servers. (Are you trying to say most machines are configured as mail
> servers, not counting delivering locally generated mail?)

I'm saying that if someone, somewhere doesn't have a mail server for 
you, you aren't going to find mail very useful.  Why do you want to make 
it difficult for that person even if it isn't you?

> Regardless of what kind of configuration is shipped, it is not going
> to work for most people running a mail server without changes.

Why do you think that a mail server that works in one place could not 
work with the same configuration in many places?  Now that almost all 
client programs speak authenticated smtps, a canned server that 
authenticates with your system PAM setup would be as portable as sshd.

> You talk about shipping "expertly built working configuations".
> Maybe if you defined what they should be, there could be packages
> containing those configurations for people that need them.

If I were an expert, I wouldn't be complaining about having to write my 
own configuration to get something that works at all.  What I'm saying 
is that someone else could have done it better - like they have done for 
sshd, httpd, etc. and it would be easier to discuss and solve problems 
if everyone started from the same working setup.

> Something
> like the caching-nameserver package for Bind.

Ahh, so you do understand what is missing...

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com