Hello again, * Martin Steigerwald wrote on 2012-01-19 at 19:28 (+0100):
> Am Donnerstag, 19. Januar 2012 schrieb Jon Dowland: > > On 19/01/12 12:50, Mathias Bauer wrote: > > > Is this a general advice? If so, then why? > > > > Yes. > > > > <http://pyropus.ca/software/getmail/faq.html#faq-about-why> > > covers many reasons. thanks for the link. > Holy smoke! > > Well that are enough reasons for me. OTOH it would be > interesting to know the other side of the story. I got curious about getmail so I just gave it a try and it seems to be quite nice. But apart from fetchmail's "security history" and the asserted complexity of its config file, that was pointed to several times in the (in some way emotionally heated) document linked above, getmail lacks two features at first glance: (a) Any SSL certification check avoiding a man-in-the-middle attack. (b) A mechanism for direct re-injection retrieved messages via SMTP to the client machine's port 25. Concerning a) it may possibly be implemented by stunnel somehow. For now I haven't figured it out. And concerning b) getmail itself provides a mechanism handing over the retrieved messages via a pipe (e.g. using /usr/sbin/sendmail to the MTA). Of course the needed additional process(es) are far away from being as efficient as direct delivery via SMTP. (Although getmail doesn't (and won't) support (b) and other solutions are recommended in the docs and its mailing list's messages, there may be situations where "going through the MTA" is necessary.) Well, for the moment it seems to me that this is the price of replacing fetchmail - and of "The Unix Way (tm) - do one thing and do it well" :-) Regards, Mathias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120119220908.ga10...@gmx.org