[Raw Msg Headers][Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: smtpserver policy database problem
On Sat, 21 Mar 1998, Kevin W. Nikiforuk wrote:
> > is RTFM and, if that is unavailable, RTFC (Read The Fine Code, of course
> > :-) ). But certainly the INSTALL document is good enough for a mundane
> > installation ...
> Not to belabour it, but that's my point. =) The INSTALL document ISN'T
> enough for a mundane installation. I couldn't find any mention of the
> need to execute policy-builder.sh so I probably would have been there a
> while trying to figure it out.
Yes, I appreciate your point. As of recently (but obviously not now), the
INSTALL document was enough. But the along come the spammers to force
implementation of this stuff and the documentation has not kept up.
Another point is, strictly speaking, the policy stuff isn't necessary to
run smtpserver. If you delete the smtpserver.conf file or comment out the
line about the policy database, smtpserver will run.
> A code freeze would be nice if it means documentation. =)
Yes: code freeze == functionality freeze => no excuse not to have
up-to-date documentation! Unfortunately, I have no idea when this might
happen because Matti's a pretty busy guy.
BTW, you mentioned earlier that it is a shame that Z-mailer is obscure
compared to sendmail. Of course, I agree with that sentiment, but at the
same time realise that Z-mailer's forte is in cranking out large volumes
of mail. Given that, it has definitely oriented toward developers and
system administrators who are used to piecing together documentation from
various places and, if necessary, looking at code to figure out how things
work. More documentation would make it more attractive to others though
and then people could be running something more secure than sendmail. For
now, I would highly recommend beginners to install .rpm, .deb, etc.
packages to get Z-mailer minimally up and running - then it can be
learned, configured and tuned at leisure.
The University of Chicago Press