On Wed, May 16, 2001, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> 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.
What a great alternative... how about not breaking the MTA
in the first place?
> > Sorry, but Unix is built out of tools. Use them (or use Emacs, which
> > has everything built in).
>
> You mean mutt should be like emacs and have everything built-in?
That's what you seem to want, not me.
Please read my sentence again. If you want everything in one
"program": use emacs.
> Either we agree or you contradict yourself.
Neither nor.
On Wed, May 16, 2001, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> Certainly not. Who needs a queue? Either the mail is delivered or the
> user will be presented with a failure and invited to postpone his
> message and fix his config or ask the admin what's wrong with the relay
> MTA.
Very useful (NOT). I had the "fun" of having to deal with an
"MTA" that didn't queue message in case of temporary failures.
It's just plain stupid.
This discussion is useless. See my first answer: you can do whatever
you want. Use the source, you got it (and even a "patch").
