Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!bbn.com!papaya.bbn.com!rsalz
From: rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: sendmail shock.  Bibliography?
Message-ID: <3487@litchi.bbn.com>
Date: 11 Apr 91 18:13:22 GMT
References: <1991Apr1.173622.12281@appmag.com> <1991Apr2.180215.1356@sci34hub.sci.com> <1991Apr3.202552.20907@athena.mit.edu> <5PHAVD9@xds13.ferranti.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: BBN Systems and Technology, Inc.
Lines: 20

In article <1991Apr3.202552.20907@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
>   Wasn't the FSF working on a mailer at one point?  Whatever happened with
> that?  Anybody know?
In <5PHAVD9@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>Well, smail 3.1 is under the GPL, so that's probably what happened to it.
The last time FSF said something publically about mailers, they were still unsure
if they wanted to use smail3.1, Rayan's Zmailer, or roll their own.  I believe
that this is still the case.

I also remember that Rayan was lobbying Keith Bostic very hard to get Zmailer
accepted as a replacement for sendmail in 4.4.  Keith seemed interested, but
then it was late at night at a Usenix near the lobby bar... :-)

>The confusing thing is that smail 2.5 and smail 3.1 are completely different
>programs with not an atom of code in common. :-<
Yes.  smail3.1 is a very badly named program.
	/r$
-- 
Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.
Use a domain-based address or give alternate paths, or you may lose out.