Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:32:36 -0800 From: Joshua Tinnin <krinklyfig@spymac.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: cpghost@cordula.ws Subject: Re: migrating from thunderbird to mutt? Message-ID: <200412200932.37029.krinklyfig@spymac.com> In-Reply-To: <20041220164151.GA847@orion.daedalusnetworks.priv> References: <41C4FA1C.4090006@nbritton.org> <20041220162538.GA1206@bsdbox.farid-hajji.net> <20041220164151.GA847@orion.daedalusnetworks.priv>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 20 December 2004 08:41 am, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> wrote: > % Moved from freebsd-questions to freebsd-chat, > % since this is not really a question. > > On 2004-12-20 17:25, cpghost@cordula.ws wrote: > >On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 04:15:18PM +0100, Matthias Buelow wrote: > >>cpghost@cordula.ws wrote: > >>> esmtp will contact the appropriate SMTP server on your behalf and > >>> will use the correct credentials to connect (if required). > >> > >> What happens if sending fails (for whatever temporary reason)? > >> Will esmtp queue the mail, like a real MTA would? The issue is > >> problematic with all those "minimalistic" pseudo-MTAs because mutt > >> thinks it's delivering to a real sendmail, and hence doesn't > >> handle failure gracefully (at least not afair). Mozilla otoh, > >> initiating the smtp connection by itself, will let you retry, or > >> save it to a Drafts folder. With mutt, your mail is probably gone. > > > > Indeed. That's really a problem. I wished mutt would include > > libESMTP as a compile/configure option, and thus queue unsent mails > > in a dedicated mailbox. I don't think that it would be very > > difficult to merge libESMTP into mutt anyway. It's a mystery why it > > didn't happen yet :) > > Err, I may sound a bit silly now, but why would people use a "limited > sort of MTA", which may lose their messages instead of setting up a > real MTA and use its queueing, forwarding and delivery features? > > I've heard of two major replies to a question like this: > > 1. It's difficult to install an MTA. > 2. It's difficult to set up an MTA. > > The first point is moot, given the fact that FreeBSD comes with an > MTA preinstalled. The second may be valid for Sendmail, but I've > seen so many knowledgeable people answer questions about Sendmail > here and at comp.mail.sendmail that this shouldn't be true either. > > Even if someone hates the guts of Sendmail, there is always Postfix, > whose minimal configuration can be just a 2-line file: > > % cat /etc/postfix/main.cf > myhostname = bee > mydomain = serverhive.com > > So, why do people fear real MTAs so much and try to do their work > with "light, fast, broken, almost-there MTAs"? As for me, it's because my box is in a LAN with a router using a dynamic IP, so I can't get a fully-qualified domain name. This also causes some minor issues with fbsd, but not so much that I can't work with it. As for using Sendmail as the MTA just so Mutt can pass off email to an SMTP server, I've tried configuring it for weeks now, and I'm still not there. I may end up using esmtp if it can save some headaches, although I purposely tried to get Sendmail to work so that I could do it the "right" way. Well, I still want to learn, but it's one of the most confusing and frustrating experiences I've ever had dealing with software, and I'm not alone in this. *That's* why people fear "real" MTAs so much, because mail transfer protocols and software at the low level is very complicated and extremely finicky in ways that aren't documented clearly. - jt
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200412200932.37029.krinklyfig>