F20 - Unintended consequences of no default MTA - How best to fix

[Lars E. Pettersson]

On 01/04/2014 02:59 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> What I fail to follow is, why break the existing mechanism *before* we
>> have these other future notification mechanisms ready?
>
> 1. Most people weren't using it.

How do you know that?

The functionality is there, you not knowing about it is no reason to 
remove it.

> 2. No default MTA does *NOT* break the existing mechanism. It simply requires a minority of users to not be lazy whiners and yum install <blahMTA>.

It *does* break existing functionality.

Whiners about sendmail could equally well do 'yum remove sendmail' and 
be over with it. So what is your point? The fact that a user can select 
to add or remove a certain applications has nothing to do with what we 
are discussing now.

> This whole thread is like someone died.

No.

> Make it easy, just jump straight to acceptance. Nothing is broken.

It is broken. Read in on the subject, and you will see.

Please read the question you quoted, the first one in this mail. Try to 
understand what it says.

Lars
-- 
Lars E. Pettersson <lars at homer.se>
http://www.sm6rpz.se/