Re: selective smart host/sendmail choice
Hello David,
* On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 04:12:50AM -0400 David Yitzchak Cohen wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 01:08:38PM EDT, Spiro Trikaliotis wrote:
> > Nevertheless, if a piece of software is vulnerable because of its
> > cryptic configuration, then this is a big problem IMHO.
[...]
> Hey, you must admit that a manual gearbox requires a lot more "reading
> up" than an automatic if you want to be able to use it properly, and
> more advanced stuff like clutch braking and heal-toe downshifts take a
> lot more study and practice.
Yes, but there is also a difference between the gearbox we know
nowadays, the gearboxes that were used some x * ten years ago (so-called
"unsynchronized"), and a gearbox where I have to change every rack-wheel
by hand in dismantling the gearbox, changing the wheels and
reintegrating it. ;-) In my view, sendmail seems to be of the latter
type.
I want a normal ("synchronized") gearbox (postfix) or a "unsynchronized"
gearbox (exim) (ever drove a car with such a thing? It's really sad to
press the clutch that often for changing just one gear). I do *not* want
to be a mechanics for changing the gear.
> I think it's important to look at the sheer power that
> sendmail puts in your hands without ever editing a single line of
> sendmail source code.
But why can't sendmail put this functionality in human-readable config
files?
> You can totally change almost everything from the address syntax all
> the way to the basic transport operation - all without touching the
> source code.
I believe this is possible with exim, too. Your point is? ;-)
> You've also got a rather powerful regex engine that you
> can use to your heart's content, not to mention that you can call
> external stuff if you prefer, or you can mix and match.
Some as above. Exim can do it. (I do not know if it can do it in the
same level of detail, but it is in there.
Regards,
Spiro.
--
Spiro R. Trikaliotis
http://www.trikaliotis.net/
http://www.viceteam.org/