(Sorry about the tardy reply) On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 05:33, Tony Earnshaw wrote: > tor, 15.01.2004 kl. 17.18 skrev pkm: > > > I do have one comment regarding the whole mail sending/retrieval > > strategy. I don't understand why evolution (and many other mail clients) > > try to take on the role of the MTA. fetchmail and many sendmail clones > > have been around for quite some time, and work well when configured > > properly. > > There's no such thing as a Sendmail clone, luckily. There are several > MTA dropins that use a surrogate sendmail binary; I use Exim 4 and > Postfix 2, which can both be called as 'sendmail'. But both are utterly > different to configure and don't have many of Sendmail's disadvantages.
Regarding using "sendmail", I never meant that I wanted to use the crappy old sendmail, I mean <quote>sendmail</quote>; whichever one you use (I use esmtp). > > I am a little dissappointed that I can not have fetchmail run > > when I press the 'Send/Receive' button, or have any control over the > > options passed to sendmail. > > Why use fetchmail at all? It's an MTA utility (a bit like an artificial > limb, actually), not an MUA utility and Evo doesn't need it... > One of my key goals for email management (and I don't think I'm in the minority here) is to separate which app is doing what. I don't want to depend on having an X display with evolution running in order to check my email. I often ssh in and check my mbox's with mutt. I'd say this justifies having fetchmail and whichever sendmail variant I use. It all has to do with separating the mail reading/writing apps from the mail getting/sending apps so that I can read/write email remotely. > > As to any > "options passed to sendmail", I fear you're getting things mixed up. Evo > uses smtp as originally defined in rfcs 821 and 822 - and since extended > and improved with myriads of other rfcs, to most of which Evo adheres > far better than do many other clients. Which ones of the 'myriads' is it adhering to, and you're assuming too much of my ISP. > Passing options to Sendmail has > nothing to do with smtp - why should everybody use Sendmail anyway? I > don't. You can't tell me that there you never use command line options and actually have a working *nix box. And I'm not telling everyone to use 'sendmail', it sounds more like you're telling everyone to use evo. > smtp deals transparently with *every* rfc-compliant MTA. And if my ISP's MTA isn't rcf-compliant (M$ Exchange)? What then? On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 04:14, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 09:43 +0100, Ludek Safar wrote: > > That's such a true. We're fighting to spread Linux as wide as possible > > and unfortunately most of potential end users are just scared about > > these things. I'm not telling it's OK, it's just a fact. > > More to the point, it doesn't _have_ to be a problem. Those of us who > _are_ aware that an MUA has no business trying to filter or spam-check > incoming mail don't _have_ to use these 'features'. > > You can do spam checking and filtering into separate folders at delivery > time as $DEITY intended, and Evolution will be quite happy with that > too. I totally agree with you, *nix needs to be more user friendly, and those who 'know better'/'know how' can use the particular 'MTA Utility'. My primary point is that these functions have already been coded by someone else at some point, and I just don't see the logic in having developers spend their valuable time re-inventing the wheel just to make it look a bit better. I think it'd be great if I could configure procmail/spamassassin from a nice looking settings gui like the one evolution has. -Pete =) _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
