Re: Fw: [PHP-DEV] RFC Proposal: Pluggable Mail Transports

2016-03-11 Thread Johannes Schlüter
On Fri, 2016-03-11 at 08:35 +0100, Dolf Schimmel, TransIP wrote: > They surely could. In fact that's how we've been doing it for a long > time now. But they also want to lock down things as much as possible. In > our case we decided to disallow PHP from doing any forking and put it in > a (noexec)

Re: Fw: [PHP-DEV] RFC Proposal: Pluggable Mail Transports

2016-03-10 Thread Dolf Schimmel, TransIP
> From: Ángel González > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 21:12, Ángel González wrote: > I don't think more than a direct SMTP transport will be needed (LMTP > perhaps?), but it seems a good idea that #29629 can finally be fixed. > These would indeed be a few examples. Although

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC Proposal: Pluggable Mail Transports

2016-02-29 Thread Johannes Schlüter
On Sun, 2016-02-28 at 17:55 +, Dolf Schimmel wrote: > Howdy, > > I'm planning to create an RFC on this shortly, but would like to gauge > the initial response first. > > Currently whenever an email is sent through the mail() function it is > sent by an invocation of a sendmail-compatible

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC Proposal: Pluggable Mail Transports

2016-02-28 Thread Ángel González
I don't think more than a direct SMTP transport will be needed (LMTP perhaps?), but it seems a good idea that #29629 can finally be fixed. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[PHP-DEV] RFC Proposal: Pluggable Mail Transports

2016-02-28 Thread Dolf Schimmel
Howdy, I'm planning to create an RFC on this shortly, but would like to gauge the initial response first. Currently whenever an email is sent through the mail() function it is sent by an invocation of a sendmail-compatible executable. However, there are scenario's in which an alternative