| 1 |
On 26/11/2020 04:09, Grant Edwards wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2020-11-26, thelma@×××××××××××.com <thelma@×××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Thank you for input. Maybe that is why it is so hard to find good |
| 5 |
>> explanation/howto how to configure it. The config file looks very |
| 6 |
>> simple, that is I decided to try it. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Ah, that's another devine mystery. I believe that the small size of a |
| 9 |
> sendmail config file, when compared to the number of malfunctions it |
| 10 |
> can create violates several basic tenants of information theory. I |
| 11 |
> think the explanation involves extra dimensions that normal software |
| 12 |
> can't access. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
The problem is that sendmail is the kitchen sink of mtas. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
It was written in a much gentler time, when people hadn't even thought |
| 17 |
of spam, and the standard wan link was a mag-tape in a van or a 300-baud |
| 18 |
modem. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The original author (Eric Allman) got it working reasonably well and |
| 21 |
then forgot about it. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Other people then customised it to buggery. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Then the Internet hit. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Then Eric tried to re-impose some semblance of design and remove the |
| 28 |
worst topsy effects. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Then assorted people wrote competing emailers like qmail, postfix, etc. |
| 31 |
But they all had to be sendmail-compatible... |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
So a fully-functional sendmail installation is the most powerful, |
| 34 |
flexible mta there is out there. The snag is, most people only use 10% |
| 35 |
of that power, but nobody can agree on which 10% is the most important. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Cheers, |
| 38 |
Wol |
Archives