On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 11:18:32AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 08:59:31AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > > On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 07:38:23PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 12:21:17PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > > > > The problem is that there is no way to automatically determine the > > > > "best choice". > > > > > > I disagree. > > > > > > > There are common setups contradicting each other, > > > > > > Can you name them? > > > > There are still ISPs not offering a Smarthost. > > Does this include residential ISPs?
I do not know. > > And if they offer a smarthost, the range of having authentication, no > > authentication, SMTP AUTH, SMTP after POP, TLS, no TLS, is rather > > broad. > > That sucks. I didn't know that. > > However, it doesn't have to be so bad. Apart from the POP-before-SMTP, > exim is able to handle all of them natively; and it handles TLS without > requiring special setup on the client side (provided STARTTLS is > properly advertised). The problem is a situation where the smarthost does not allow TLS, which currently requires the local admin to explicitly allow authentication over an unencrypted connection. > > > > and the only way to reliably determine which setup does apply to the > > > > local situation is to ask the user. > > > > > > I agree; however, I'm not convinced that the way exim4 currently does > > > this is the most appropriate one. > > > > I am open to suggestions. Back when the exim4 packages were developed, > > we mainly copied what exim 3 did and debconfed the questions. > > I'll try to come up with something. Great. > The main problem I have with the current setup is that out of the > choices which are currently available, I never know which to pick since > none of them seems to ever work correctly for my purposes. This may be > because I misunderstand them; however, personally I wouldn't call myself > an inexperienced exim user (I've been setting up some fairly complex > exim-based setups), so I wonder how someone who is inexperienced would > handle things. This is one of the reasons why I am the wrong guy to make exim more user friendly. I'm just too experienced to think in the twisted ways a user would do. exim4's README.Debian in unstable and testing has much more verbose documentation about the debconf stuff. Did you already look at this information? > > > > Frankly, I don't think that there is any chance of simplifying the > > > > setup of exim4. mail is rocket science, > > > > > > Certainly not. Everone uses it; it's ubiquitous. > > > > Almost nobody gets it right, and the mechanisms behind it are by far > > the most complex every-day internet service. Even DNS is simpler. > > What does that have to do with getting your default setups to do it > right? Because there is no universal "right" which is "right" in all circumstances. Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
