You're cocky and absolutely useless.
Thanks
-jeremy
> 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
>
http://www.xxedgexx.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------
