On Wednesday 28 September 2005 01:10, Steve Lamb wrote: > As I said, and what do those programs do when said helper program > isn't available? By definition they have to have a queue of their own > since the only thing they can control is their own behavior. To not > have some method of dealing with an external failure is bad design, > plain and simple. And since any good design is going to be resistant > to external failure it doesn't matter through what means that external > failure is reached.
By building an MTA's functions into every program that needs to send mail? > I guess a better question to ask is why everyone insisnts on having > an external queue when an internal one is pretty much required for > robustness? I don't understand why you say that. Many programs on Unix-like systems rely on the functionality and availability of other services. It's part of the tradition and philosophy (again, see ESR's Art of Unix Programming). I think a better question is: why should cron, at, mailx and all the MUAs independently be coded and debugged to implement the functionality that any one MTA can provide? -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
