1 |
On 2020-04-03, Caveman Al Toraboran <toraboracaveman@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> though i'm a bit curious about sendmail (if your |
4 |
> time allows). do you mean the ebuild "sendmail"? |
5 |
|
6 |
Yes. I meant the program provided by the "sendmail" ebuild. That is |
7 |
the MTA named "sendmail" that's been around since the universe cooled |
8 |
enough to form atoms: |
9 |
|
10 |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sendmail |
11 |
|
12 |
For many years it was the de-facto standard MTA for Unix systems. |
13 |
|
14 |
It's very powerful but the configuration file format is almost |
15 |
impossible to understand, so people developed an m4 application that |
16 |
accepted a _slightly_ less cryptic language and generated the sendmail |
17 |
configuration file. At it's peak back in the early 90's there were |
18 |
approximately five people in the world who actually understood |
19 |
sendmail, and none of them ever worked where you did. The rest of us |
20 |
stumbled in the dark using the finely honed cargo-cult practices |
21 |
cutting and pasting random snippets out of example configurations to |
22 |
see what happened. Usually what happed is that mail was lost or flew |
23 |
around in a loop multiplying to the point where a disk parition filled |
24 |
up. |
25 |
|
26 |
That said, sendmail has features that no other MTA has. For example, |
27 |
it can transfer mail using all sorts of different protocols that |
28 |
nobody uses these days. |
29 |
|
30 |
Back in the 90's a number of replacement MTAs were developed such as |
31 |
qmail, postfix, exim, etc. When you installed one of these, (instead |
32 |
of the classic sendmail), they would usually provide an executable |
33 |
file named "sendmail" that accepted the same command line arguments |
34 |
and input format that the original did. That allowed applications who |
35 |
wanted to send email to remain ignorant about exactly what MTA was |
36 |
installed. |
37 |
|
38 |
Exim, postfix, qmail and the others were all still full-function MTAs |
39 |
intended for a multi-users system. They could route mail to different |
40 |
destinations (including delivering it locally to a variety of mailbox |
41 |
types) and accept inbound email from other MTAs. While they were far |
42 |
easier to set up and maintain than the original sendmail, they were |
43 |
still massive overkill for a computer that was used only by a single |
44 |
person where reading mail was done via POP/IMAP and all outbound mail |
45 |
was handed over to a single outside mail relay. They often didn't |
46 |
deal well with the fact that they were running on a host that didn't |
47 |
have a "real" hostname that meant anything to the outside world, and |
48 |
that the local hostname had nothing to do with the email addresses of |
49 |
the user(s). |
50 |
|
51 |
For that use case, simple MTAs like msmtp, ssmtp, and nullmailer were |
52 |
written that don't handle incoming mail at all, and where all outbound |
53 |
mail is sent to a single mail relay host. The first two don't even do |
54 |
any queuing: if you try to send mail when your relay host is |
55 |
unreachable, then the send simply fails. |
56 |
|
57 |
These too, when installed, provide an executable named "sendmail" that |
58 |
accepts the same command line options and input format as the original. |