Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?

[Scott Bennett]

     On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:03:12 -0200 Gonzalo Nemmi <gnemmi at gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Tuesday 27 October 2009 4:32:45 pm Erik Norgaard wrote:
>> Jonathan McKeown wrote:
>> > Just as a matter of interest, if you want to rip sendmail out of
>> > the base system, which MTA would you like to replace it with? Or
>> > are you suggesting the system ship with no way to handle mail?
>>
>> This thread moving of topic from OP, but it is always fair to debate
>> what should be considered a base system. Is an MTA a requirement or a
>> remnant from history?
>
>Dear Erik:
>
>Contrary to your belief the thread isn't moving of topic from OP, it's 
>just taking the same default route it has been taking for ages:

     Just so.

>1) telling the OP the OS needs an MTA
>2) telling the OP he can replace the default MTA
>3) telling the OP he can remove given MTA from base
>4) telling the OP about "historical reason"

     This item has been neglected thus far in the current iteration of
this topic.  The *historical* distinction that places sendmail squarely
in the base system and also relegates all other MTAs to ports is this:
sendmail was written for, and has been part of, BSD UNIX since the
earliest TCP/IP releases of BSD UNIX (4.1BSD or perhaps even 4.0cBSD),
whereas the rest were not and have not been.

>5) Not telling the OP why has FreeBSD has left so many historical reason 
>behind to persuit new goals but retained Sendmail as the default 
>MTA "for historical reasons".
>
>Sorry .. but that's the way it goes every time someone asks the same 
>question.
>
      And George Santayana's famous dictum may well apply even in this
case. :)


                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**********************************************************************
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
**********************************************************************