-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 24 May 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Scott D. Yelich writes:
> > Wha? Why so? Sendmail supresses dup addresses before sending. It's a
> > very nice feature.
> Scott, you really should go review the list archive before you open
> your mouth. This is an old topic that has been discussed to death.
> Basically, sendmail does a CRAP job of suppressing duplicates (the
> classical example is mail sent to both [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]). That qmail does not even attempt to do a lousy job
> is a reflection of qmail's higher standards.
oooh, I feel the love.... I feel it.
Actually, I was just asking why couldn't qmail supress dupes on local
addresses. It's pretty easy to understand why neither sendwhale or
qmail can prevent remotely expanded addresses from causing dupes -- but
the fact that qmail doesn't even try to stop local dupes doesn't show me
how superior it is. It simply shows me another area where qmail is
lacking.
You don't have to agree.
Scott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBN0ifNh4PLs9vCOqdAQF8bgP/Z97vpFMITx5UWRGs4qgyMjohAwOsmyoR
PpDG+FCBeCel9nN1QR+Ho5P4eXb6iYTFgBeIfzpFqLn/R/xWRdMWrpQJRM+Key0b
qNpDEroudYKLr8PdwataEuuRSZe2TtiT+hNuMjBexCkjc5pnsm4BS0HB6Ack6tw7
7hRW9JsFe+g=
=JJo5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
