Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ira.uka.de!smurf.sub.org!flatlin!pilhuhn!hwr From: hwr@pilhuhn.ka.sub.org (Heiko W.Rupp) Subject: Re: Smail 3.1.28 on 386bsd References: <1993Apr30.051036.14358@ucthpx.uct.ac.za> <PC123.93Apr30181830@bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk> <deeken.736763937@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de> Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 10:52:05 GMT Organization: The home of the Pilhuhn Message-ID: <C6wu6u.HG3@pilhuhn.ka.sub.org> Lines: 27 deeken@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Hannes Deeken) writes: >I wouldn't call smail's configuration mechanism annoying. >Most of the compiled-in defaults need no change, Hm, this is exactly the reason, why smail is hard to configue - everyting is compiled in and on doesn't know how it is done. > and _everything_ >(as far as I know) is overridable by the runtime configuration. This is right. >That keeps the external configuration quite small and managable. >This is one of the reasons I prefer smail 3 over sendmail (yes, I know IDA :). Hm, my smail configs are bigger than my sendmail configs have been. One helping feature ist smail -bP all which shows at least all variable settings from the config file (or the builtins). -- Heiko W.Rupp Gerwigstr.5 D-7500 (76131) Karlsruhe +49 721 693642 Carla? -- Wer kann dazu schon nein sagen? - Sag JAAAA!