Jeremy Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So it can't be done is what you're saying.
In my first reply I said it couldn't be done "out of the box".
qmail is highly modular, though, so a fairly simple qmail-inject
wrapper like John Levine suggested could be used to implement this
functionality: try to send the message directly with qmail-remote. If
that succeeds, you're done. If it fails, queue the message on your
fallback server. This isn't rocket science.
>I haven't really seen any good
>arguments as to why it shouldn't be done,
I haven't seen any good arguments as to why it *should* be done. Dan
shuns features that *might* work.
>but obviously the DJ cronies aren't going to argue his logic.
I'm not a DJB crony, but I'm not above second guessing him at
times. :-)
>It's frustrating for someone like me who
>can recognize the many advantages of qmail, even with this little set back
>it kills sendmail, but when you run into a feature that seems to be useful
>(I'm sure I'm ot theonly one), then you're screwed because Dan says so.
Oh, and with other MTA's you're not at the whim of the developer? If
you wish for a sendmail or PostFix feature, it will come to pass,
even against the will of the author? Fascinating. I didn't know
that. That would certainly explain how many "features" made it into
sendmail, though. :-)
-Dave
