On 04/20/2007 03:45 PM somebody named David Brodbeck wrote: > ken wrote: >> If I needed a mail server, well then, yes, I'd use it. But I don't need >> that. It just seems ridiculous to set up a mail server on every machine >> on which somebody sends out an email. > > I don't know. It depends on how you look at it. To me it's like > asking, "Why should I have to run a print spooler service just to > print? Each program should talk to the printer directly, using its own > drivers." > > Often it just makes sense to centralize functionality like this instead > of requiring individual programs to carry around a lot of baggage. It's > especially handy if you have more than one program that sends mail, > since you only have to configure everything once, in postfix. Postfix > isn't really acting as a server in any real sense, here; more like a > middleman for the mail client. Hence the term "mail transfer agent." >
No argument. Being the original poster, I should probably repeat the solution I was after: One user on one machine sends out (via a script run from a cron job) one email per day. This user is serviced by a quite robust remote mail server (actually a cluster of eight mail servers dispersed around the US). For me to set up my own mail server would not likely improve the reliability of this system. Of course there could be a network outage, or a local problem preventing delivery. But this would be noticed by a human at the email's destination. And there will be some kind of error message on the source side; nail, for example, seems to return an error code in the event of failure. I could be wrong, but I just don't see how one outgoing email per day (and no incoming mail) warrants a mail server. -- "This world ain't big enough for the both of us," said the big noema to the little noema. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
