On Wednesday 28 September 2005 14:23, Steve Lamb wrote: (Apologies if this is getting too OT!)
> > The "desktop" of a typical Debian user will probably involve > > functions that require an MTA of some kind. > > Mine certainly doesn't and I don't think I that far beyond the > pale. So you don't run logcheck and don't want output from cron or at jobs? I think that's unusual among Debian users. > Why should I when the program has to handle failure anyway? The > argument always seems to be "The MTA can handle failures." OK, and > when the MTA fails what, the program sending mail is just supposed to > route it to /dev/null? You could make that argument about syslogd or any other service! > Even mutt, the current MUA de jour of the > die-hard unixeistas has it's own primative queuing in place in case of > MTA failure. Good point, but that mail is still going to sit there *until* the MTA starts working again. I thought you were arguing against the necessity of having one there at all? > That's exactly what I said. Those who prefer Exim can still > install it with the nominal expense of having to do a quick > apt-get|aptitude. This is different in how it is now where > apt-get|aptitude automatically install it. Hence... nominal expense. > :) Sorry, I misread it the first time. -- ## 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/
