On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 04:48:18PM +0000, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2014-01-04, Ulrich Lauther <ulrich.laut...@t-online.de> wrote: > > > Recent posts made me aware of the fact, that mutt supports SMPT. So > > far I have been using postfix for mail transport. Which way is > > better, and why? > > [I'm assuming you're using postfix only for outbound mail. If you're > using Postfix to handle incoming mail, there's no way for mutt to do > that.] > > Do you need/want outbound messages to be queued if they can't be sent > immediately? If yes, then you need a "real" MTA like postfix.
not really. msmtp and esmtp have queueing. > Do all outbound messages get sent to a single relay host for routing? > If no, then you need a "real" MTA. more precisely if you need direct delivery as opposed to using one or several smarthosts. On the other hand, each of bultin mutt, mstmp and esmtp provide support for several smarthosts much easier than real MTAs. > There is also the intermediate step of using something like msmtp > which is a minimalist outbound-only MTA that provides the same > "/bin/sendmail" command-line API as postfix, qmail, sendmail etc. It > doesn't do queueing and it doesn't incoming mail: it's an SMTP client > only, where postfix is both an SMTP client (outbound mail) and an SMTP > server (incoming mail). queueing scripts have been added that should work good enough for single users trying to send their mail http://dev.mutt.org/trac/wiki/SendmailAgents http://esmtp.sourceforge.net/ Richard --- Name and OpenPGP keys available from pgp key servers
