At 20:25 31-10-2002, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
At 11:29 31-10-2002, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
-- Why should I need to open a network socket with all problems that may
arrise with
it, when I can call a binary?
why bother with additional subprocesses,
incompatible command line interfaces,
a command line interface that wasn't even
really meant to be used for non-human interaction?
the only advantage of using the sendmail binary
on unix is that you usualy can rely on it being
already configured
Ok, good points.
besides that *all* the problems with mail()
(one process per mail unless you bcc: identical copies,
From: setting, no influence on SMTP envelope, ...)
simply do not exist with SMTP based solutions
(unless they are so badly coded as the win32 mail()
implementation has been in the past ...)
Sure, but isn't this a convenience function?
There's fsockopen and a number of plug-n-play SMTP packs
out there using it.
mail() should be '/bin/mail', You use it for simple things,
not for bulkmailing and other advanced SMTP options.
Wrapping (E)SMTP into a single mail() function opens a can of worms,
you don't want to be dealing with. IMHO That should be ext/smtp's job,
or Net::SMTP in Pear or whatever.
Met vriendelijke groeten / With kind regards,
Webmaster IDG.nl
Melvyn Sopacua
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
