Author: Bill Hacker Date: To: exim-users Subject: Re: [exim] Debian as a 'Special Case' for Exim
Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:05:21 +0800, Bill Hacker <wbh@???>
> wrote:
>
>>Marc Haber wrote:
>>
>>>I am pretty well aware that Debian is unpopular with exim upstream for
>>>shipping ancient versions and for using a non-standard configuration
>>>scheme since we need to be runnable out of the box.
>>
>>Exim, from generic tarball (three or four boxen now on the snapshot),
>>ports, or pkgsrc is 'runnable out of the box' on the *BSD's (including
>>newbie DragonFlyBSD)
>>with nothing more than:
>
>
> ... a static IP address
> ... valid DNS
> ... mostly unfiltered access to the public internet
> ... a non-NAT setup
>
> which is not the case for the majority of Debian installations.
>
In which case they look to me like *workstations* not *servers*
and should be running MUA's not MTA's.
Don't class me as overly critical of Debian - Linux in general and
Debian in particular (apt-get and the commitment to the 'F' as well as
the '/OSS' in F/OSS) are praiseworthy. Cheap way for at least the upper
10% of users to learn about UNIX. The other 90% at least get off WinWoes.
But setting up full-house MTA's on IP's 'allocated portable' is not
generally in the best interest of the 'net.
>
>>Too many workstations think they are 'servers' and should be running
>>only MUA's, not MTA's.
>
>
> Too many UNIX applications expect to be able to send mail by just
> calling /usr/sbin/sendmail, which calls for a local MTA.
>
The UNIX default 'sendmail' actually does that quite well, needs no more
configuration that a valid address in /etc/aliases for root, and does
the basics with fewer complications than a Deb-ified version of Exim.
The UNIX default install of Exim goes in right over top of that with
very minimal config changes required.
And - BTW - for a box that is NOT a remote, unattended server, there is
seldom a pressing need to send that mail somewhere off-box.
IF/AS/WHEN one needs to provide smtp as a more general service, to many
shell account users, for a corporate LAN / intra-net, or for virtual
hosting, then it is another matter entirely - but one should by then
also be into registered domains and fixed IP's.
>
>>So how and why is Debian so different from the *BSD's (as a server OR
>>workstation) or OS X (as a workstation) - or other Linuxes, even,
>
>
> Debian has the Debconf frontend, which is mandatory to use, and other
'Mandatory'? No such animal - not even out of Redmond, WA.
> ways of integrating debconf with exim's rather big, monolithic
> configuration have shown not to be practical.
>
Compare it with the small modular courier-mta configuration.
Only have to change a few lines in 7 or 8 files instead of a few lines
in one....?
Would it not be better to improve the tool Debian uses to better fit
(whatever) MTA was shipped?
>
>>...that is has to use stale Exim releases,
>
> Please see Debian's release policy.
>
>
>>and/or non-standard
>>configurations/toolsets to be 'runnable out of the box'?
>
>
> We don't expect our users to edit a multi-hundred line config file.
>
To which a very, very few changes are needed...
Sounds to me as if Debian is just doing them in an obsolete manner when
a less contrarian way could serve.
Why not just:
- Furnish a selection - say four or so - of pre-tweaked configurations,
one for each of several more common environments. (IP and domain-wise).
But in the standard Exim configure format.
Stripped of comments and unused clauses, each would be fairly small.
- Provide a menued 'sed inplace' or similar tool to set the domain.tld
and such other 'personalization' required - BUT STILL to a 'standard'
exim configure file format (optionally stripped of comments - or with
Debian comments *added*)
Then - the 'expert level' - leave editing of a *full standard* Exim
configure to those who need and want the full power of it.
Voila - full configure file compatibility with the rest of the Exim
multiverse.
Deb-ifying the Exim configuration file structure in the name of
ease-of-use for newbies seems to be doing anything BUT making it easier
to use.
They can't presently get much help here 'coz they have an off-the-wall
setup.
How is that helping them? Or anyone?
And if Exim is wrong and Debian is right ---
whyintheeverlovinblueyedaitch do all the other Linuxes, BSD's, UNIXes'
(dare I add Mac's and CygWinned WinBoxen?) just use the same, standard,
Exim configure file?
>
>>- but 'runnable out of the box' does not compute as a rationale for
>>breaking something.
>
>
> We didn't break anything.
>
..except, perhaps, a viable and supportable Exim configuration
methodology...
QED.
Does 'Debconf' do this to other apps?
> Greetings
> Marc
>
