Re: mailwrapper *

On 2024-04-16 05:01, Lexi Winter wrote:
> Chris:
>> As I read it, and use it; mailwrapper(8) simply *assumes* that there
>> is *some* default (based on available options) MTA already installed,
>> and points to it as needed. The sendmail/dma stuff is there as a
>> system isn't really complete if one can't send mail. How had you
>> intended to improve the process?
> 
> right: if you have mailwrapper, you also need an MTA.
> 
> but the situation here is if you have an MTA and *don't* have
> mailwrapper, i.e. you build src WITHOUT_MAILWRAPPER.
> 
> in that case -- if i'm reading the Makefile correctly -- the build
> process will create a symlink from 'mailwrapper' to either dma or
> sendmail binary, so it appears to consumers that mailwrapper is
> installed even though it's not; trying to use it simply calls the MTA
> directly.
> 
> my proposal is to remove this functionality, i.e. the special handling
> of the WITHOUT_MAILWRAPPER case, to simplify the Makefile and make it
> less confusing to pkgbase-ify mailwrapper into its own package.
> 
> this functionality was modified for DMA in 3467e28f [0] in 2022, but
> was originally added for sendmail in 2632dac8 [1], way back in 2002.
> i assume the use-case was people who wanted to use sendmail but didn't
> want to install mailwrapper for some reason, but nowadays, i would be
> surprised if anyone is still doing this.
I generally pick and setup my MTA up front. So mailwrappper(8) doesn't
really play a part. But I can't see where your proposed changes could have
anything but a positive affect. Thanks for the clarification, and thanks for
your efforts on this.

> 
> [0] 
> https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/commit/?id=3467e28f3d114f35bdfa87d6afd373f9d291dfb3
> [1] 
> https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/commit/?id=2632dac82984593a7be37bafc570a93f82270249

---Chris