On Sun, 13 Jun 2010, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On 13/Jun/10 18:07, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > > 1. Can you give a very brief summary of the scenario that fetchmail > > provides that you believe needs to be covered and is not (and for what > > definition, exactly)? > > I don't have strong beliefs about fetchmail's MTA-ness.
Fetchmail sucks messages out of a mailstore via IMAP or POP and re-injects them using SMTP to a local MTA which it expects to do local delivery to a local mailstore. Microsoft Small Business Server does something similar. > > 2. What text, in particular, is wrong with respect to the case you cite, > > or what functionality needs to be covered and is not? > > Fetchmail changes the envelope recipient when it relays retrieved messages to > the target MTA. Once a message has been delivered it has no envelope, so fetchmail has to re-invent the envelope rather than rewrite it. > According to RFC 5598, fetchmail is a Mediator. Unfortunately, that term > isn't widely used in such technical acceptation. Yes. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <[email protected]> http://dotat.at/ SOUTH THAMES DOVER WIGHT: NORTHEASTERLY 4 OR 5 INCREASING 5 TO 7, OCCASIONALLY GALE 8 IN DOVER AND WIGHT, AND PERHAPS GALE 8 LATER IN SOUTH THAMES. SLIGHT OR MODERATE, BECOMING MODERATE OR ROUGH. SHOWERS. MAINLY GOOD. _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
