On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 03:19:46PM +0000, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 03:09:42PM +0000, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote:
> > > > > I've just seen a downside to the "no non-standard modules" rule, which is 
> > > > > that we'll have to send all mail by piping to sendmail. And that really 
> > > > > hits your cross-platform compatibility.
> > > > Why is this a problem? /usr/lib/sendmail is the published interface.
> > > And for those unfortunate enough to be using Windows?
> > Then are they going to be running an SMTP listener? If so, where?
> I neither know nor care.  I was taking issue with your claim that relying
> on /usr/lib/sendmail is a good idea.

This arose because of your original claim that relying on an SMTP listener
is a good idea. What happens if, say, your reverse DNS is temporarily
unavailable, and some hosts are deferring messages from you? This policy
will probably be implemented across backup MXs too. SMTP allows for
deferral. If you can't stick them on a queue, you shouldn't be trying to
do SMTP. /usr/lib/sendmail is a good interface for not worrying about
this, as it will always put messages on a queue in the first place. 4xx
are deferrals.

Also, some MXs are *slow*. How do you guarantee to do your SMTP
asynchronously from your HTTP transaction?

If you neither know nor care, then why advocate this in the first place?

MBM

-- 
Matthew Byng-Maddick   Home: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  +44 20  8980 5714  (Home)
http://colondot.net/   Work: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +44 7956 613942  (Mobile)
Tell me,  O Octopus, I begs,  /  Is those things arms, or is they legs?  /
I marvel at thee, Octopus; / If I were thou, I'd call me us. -- Ogden Nash

Reply via email to