1 |
On 2010-04-21, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On Tuesday 20 April 2010 15:53:01 Harry Putnam wrote: |
3 |
>> I think you all are missing something... sendmail is better documented |
4 |
>> than any of the other pretenders. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> One has to understand what the various MTAs out there were built to do, and |
7 |
> what their "feature list" is: |
8 |
> |
9 |
> sendmail comes from ancient days. It was written to be able to route almost |
10 |
> any kind of mail using almost any kind of addressing scheme to and from almost |
11 |
> any kind of network. |
12 |
|
13 |
Very true. And since nobody (that I know of) needs that capability |
14 |
any longer, asking modern Linux users to continue to pay for that |
15 |
capability everytime they try to tweak the MTA configuration seems a |
16 |
tad silly. |
17 |
|
18 |
> So it is quite happy receiving SMTP mail from the internet and |
19 |
> routing it to a FidoNet address. To do this, it has to reread it's |
20 |
> routing table with every message, therefore .cf was designed to be |
21 |
> machine efficient but still use only ASCII characters. Which led to |
22 |
> m4 being developed |
23 |
|
24 |
Sendmail didn't lead to m4 being developed. m4 was developed by K&R |
25 |
in the mid 70's. Sendmail didn't happen until the early 80's. |
26 |
According to Wikipedia, sendmail first shipped with BSD 4.1c in 1983. |
27 |
|
28 |
Unless in this context, m4 doesn't refer to the m4 macro processor and |
29 |
associated language? I always thought that the m4 used to encrypt |
30 |
sendmail configurations was the standard Unix m4 that was developed |
31 |
for Ratfor in the 70's. Wikipedia seems to confirm that, saying that |
32 |
"The implementation of Rational Fortran used m4 as its macro engine |
33 |
from the beginning", but Wikipedia also says that m4 was developed in |
34 |
77 and Ratfor in 74. Both were developed by K&R, so I suppose it |
35 |
could be that m4 was used by Ratfor for a couple years before m4 went |
36 |
public as a seperate program. |
37 |
|
38 |
> Even a cursory glance at sendmail shows that it was designed in a |
39 |
> time with a different mindset and different needs to what we do these |
40 |
> days. Sendmail will never escape this legacy because it is what it is |
41 |
> and that is it's purpose. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> It's not as bad as buggy whips, but the same principle is at work. |
44 |
|
45 |
The UHH chapter on sendmail has some great examples of sendmail |
46 |
address parsing/transformation run amok. |
47 |
|
48 |
-- |
49 |
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! My polyvinyl cowboy |
50 |
at wallet was made in Hong |
51 |
gmail.com Kong by Montgomery Clift! |