On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 05:50:34PM +0200, Louis-David Mitterrand ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> * On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 07:54:01AM -0700, Claus Assmann wrote:
> > On Wed, May 16, 2001, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> >
> > > > You're going to add an MTA first (reimplement sendmail). Then
> > >
> > > Huh? Adding a few dozen lines of code to deliver via SMTP is
> > > "reimplementing sendmail"? You need a serious reality check.
> >
> > "a few dozen lines of code"... Did you ever write a SMTP client?
> >
> > Oh yeah, let's start "simple": no queueing, just EHLO (oops, can't
> > use that always, so maybe HELO), MAIL, RCPT, DATA, QUIT. What about
> > temporary errors? Do you tell the user: sorry, please try again
> > later? Or do you implement queueing? Who runs the queue? When?
>
> Yes, telling the user "try later" or "postpone your message and fix your
> config" is better than injecting the message into a poorly configured
> /usr/sbin/sendail that will drop it on the floor without reporting it.
Telling the user "try later" is also better than writing it to a disk
and dropping the disk into a garbage compactor. What's your point?
How'd they get mutt installed if they can't install ssmtp or
nullmailer?
Does anybody on this list knows of anybody who does not use Mutt
because it does not provide SMTP, and refuses to install ssmtp or
nullmailer despite the fact that all of the *other* mail-related
things (cron, for instance, or their newsreader) on their system will
be unable to send mail? I see no evidence that that isn't just a huge
red herring. I can't believe that there is a large group of users out
there that refuse to allow their Unix system to understand mail.
-Rich
--
------------------------------ Rich Lafferty ---------------------------
Sysadmin/Programmer, Instructional and Information Technology Services
Concordia University, Montreal, QC (514) 848-7625
------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------
