On 2014-01-04, Ulrich Lauther <[email protected]> wrote: > Recent posts made me aware of the fact, that mutt supports SMPT. So > far I have been using postfix for mail transport. Which way is > better, and why?
[I'm assuming you're using postfix only for outbound mail. If you're using Postfix to handle incoming mail, there's no way for mutt to do that.] Do you need/want outbound messages to be queued if they can't be sent immediately? If yes, then you need a "real" MTA like postfix. Do all outbound messages get sent to a single relay host for routing? If no, then you need a "real" MTA. If all outbound mail gets sent to a single SMTP server, and each time you send a message in mutt you're willing to wait until it sends or fails, then the built-in SMTP client is fine. There is also the intermediate step of using something like msmtp which is a minimalist outbound-only MTA that provides the same "/bin/sendmail" command-line API as postfix, qmail, sendmail etc. It doesn't do queueing and it doesn't incoming mail: it's an SMTP client only, where postfix is both an SMTP client (outbound mail) and an SMTP server (incoming mail). This allows outbound mail to be handled (and logged) by a single method for multiple sources (mutt, cron, whatever), but configuration is far simpler than postfix/qmail/sendmail. http://msmtp.sourceforge.net/ -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! What I want to find at out is -- do parrots know gmail.com much about Astro-Turf?
