Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!alberta!ncc!augate!lyndon
From: lyndon@auvax.uucp (Lyndon Nerenberg)
Newsgroups: can.uucp
Subject: size of smail
Message-ID: <428@aurora.auvax.uucp>
Date: 1 Jan 89 02:11:46 GMT
References: <314@ontenv.UUCP> <88Dec17.114819est.38035@neat.ai.toronto.edu> <984@dgbt.uucp> <1988Dec30.012400.18278@ziebmef.uucp>
Reply-To: lyndon@auvax.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg)
Distribution: can
Organization: Athabasca University
Lines: 22

In article <1988Dec30.012400.18278@ziebmef.uucp> cks@ziebmef.UUCP (Chris Siebenmann) writes:
> Unfortunately, Smail 3.1 is trying to replace sendmail, not smail 2.5
>and is of an appropriately large size. I'm planning to stick to smail
>2.5 unless smail 3.1 gets a lot smaller.

In what way is smail too large?  It's running quite happily on a few
diskless 3/50's here (plus just about every other machine in the shop).
The binaries come in at roughly 250KB. That's not even *close* to the
size of our emacs binaries. It's also HALF the size of the paths file
it has to work with :-)

The source tree is getting close to 4 megs, but you don't have to keep
that online.

I wouldn't count on smail 3.1 getting any smaller -- there are still
additions to be made (e.g. DECNET support). One nice thing is that the
code is very modular, therefore the binary you generate doesn't have
much fluff in it for capabilities you don't need or want.

-- 
Lyndon Nerenberg   Computing Services   Athabasca University
{alberta, attvcr, ncc}!auvax!lyndon  ||  lyndon@nexus.ca