Re: New port: Exim4

[Brad <brad_(_at_)_comstyle_(_dot_)_com>]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 05:22:49PM -0400, Richard Welty wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:55:05 +0000 (UTC) Benny Siegert <bsiegert_(_at_)_herc_(_dot_)_66h_(_dot_)_42h_(_dot_)_de> wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Peter Galbavy wrote:
> > > multiversion ports - mail/exim/exim3 & mail/exim/exim4 - there are still
> > > many reasons to carry exim3 around :)
> 
> > Are there?
> 
> > Let's face it, exim3 is not maintained any more. If you tell on 
> > exim-users_(_at_)_exim_(_dot_)_org that you use exim3 and have a problem with it, the 
> > first answer is always "Upgrade to exim4". Version 3 really should not be 
> > deployed on new systems.
> 
> i concur.
> 
> most of those of us who hang out on the exim-users list refuse to try to
> answer exim 3 questions because we all switched to exim 4 more than
> 2 years ago and none of us really remember exim 3 that well anymore.
> 
> the only conceivable reason for keeping exim 3 around is because
> someone doesn't want to deal with the incompatible changes to the
> configuration file. i think that those people need to be encouraged to
> move on, it's well past time they dealt with it.

IMO keeping an unmaintained and unspported version of a program around
when there is a newer version that is supported and maintained is stupid.
If there were any *really* good technical reasons for keeping it around, fine,
but being lazy is not one of them.

// Brad