Import of DragonFly Mail Agent

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 11:26:20PM -0500, Julio Merino wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt at freebsd.org>wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > As some of you may have noticed, I have imorted a couple of days ago dma
> > (DragonFly Mail Agent) in base. I have been asked to explain my motivation
> > so
> > here they are.
> >
> > DragonFly Mail Agent is a minimalistic mailer that is able to relay mails
> > to
> > some smtp servers (with TLS, authentication and so on)
> >
> > It supports MASQUERADE and NULLCLIENT, and is able to deliver mails locally
> > (respecting aliases).
> >
> > I imported it because dma is lightweight, BSD license and easy to use.
> >
> > The code base is rather small and easy to capsicumize (which I plan to do)
> >
> > My initial goal is not to replace sendmail.
> 
> 
> But is it an eventual goal?  *I* don't see why not, but if it is: what's
> the plan?  How is the decision to drop sendmail going to be made when the
> time comes?  (I.e. who _can_ and will make the call?)

Anyone at anytime can call for this ;) if some bits are missing in dma to
achieve this goal I m willing to implement them.

> 
> 
> > All I want is a small mailer
> > simple to configure, and not listening to port 25, suitable for small
> > environment (embedded and/or resource bounded) as well as for server
> > deployment.
> >
> 
> Playing devil's advocate: what specific problems is this trying to solve?
>  I'd argue, for example, that postfix can be also easily configured and can
> be made to not listen on port 25 for local mail delivery, while at the same
> time it is a fully-functional MTA that could replace sendmail altogether.
>  (Which, by the way, is the configuration with which postfix ships within
> the NetBSD base system.)
> 
> The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have seen NetBSD
> maintain two MTAs (sendmail + postfix) in the base system for _years_ and
> it was not a pretty situation.  The eventual removal of sendmail was
> appreciated, but of course it came with the associated bikeshedding.

I do understand that, one of the goal of this mail is also to get feedback from
users about what they do expect, is dma fulfilling they normal requirememts for
a local mailer in general purpose cases, if yes I do not see a reason not to
remove sendmail from base.

Usual complains about sendmail in base until now has been:
- complex configuration
- long history of security concerns
- no need for a full mta in base

regards,
Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20140224/855d5bce/attachment.sig>