On 04.01.14 19:35, Ulrich Lauther 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?
If it's true that mutt fails if you try to send an email when off-line,
then that does seem definitive.
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 02:59:37PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2014-01-08, Richard Z wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 04:48:18PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
> > not really. msmtp and esmtp have queueing.
>
> Can you provide references for that statement?
>
> >From http://esmtp.sourceforg
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 03:14:08PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2014-01-08, Kim Christensen wrote:
> > compared to postfix, sendmail, EXIM, qmail and the like.
> >
> > Noones arguing against using [me]smtp as the "real MTA" in this
> > scenario :-)
>
> I think msmtp is great, and I've been us
On 2014-01-08, Kim Christensen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 02:23:31PM +0100, Richard Z wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 04:48:18PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> > On 2014-01-04, Ulrich Lauther wrote:
>> > Do you need/want outbound messages to be queued if they can't be sent
>> > immediatel
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 02:23:31PM +0100, Richard Z wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 04:48:18PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
> > On 2014-01-04, Ulrich Lauther wrote:
> > 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
On 2014-01-08, Richard Z wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 04:48:18PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2014-01-04, Ulrich Lauther 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, an
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 04:48:18PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2014-01-04, Ulrich Lauther 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 p
On 20140106_164818, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2014-01-04, Ulrich Lauther 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 outbou
On 2014-01-04, Ulrich Lauther 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 ma
On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 10:55:22PM +0100, Richard Z wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 09:16:02AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> > * Richard Z [01-05-14 08:57]:
> > [...]
> > > unless you try to do something like multiple email providers for one
> > > user which is very easy to do with anything b
Please, I read the list and have NO need of duplicate copies of posts.
* Richard Z [01-05-14 16:57]:
> On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 09:16:02AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> > * Richard Z [01-05-14 08:57]:
> > [...]
> > > unless you try to do something like multiple email providers for one
> > > u
On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 09:16:02AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Richard Z [01-05-14 08:57]:
> [...]
> > unless you try to do something like multiple email providers for one
> > user which is very easy to do with anything but sendmail/postfix/exim.
> > I have done this on all three and got
On 05Jan2014 14:55, Richard Z wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 08:48:50AM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> > AND:... All the local systems that send email (eg cron and innumerable
> > shell scripts) can send email via the UNIX standard "sendmail"
> > executable.
> >
> > Use a real mail system loca
On 05Jan2014 14:25, Chris Down wrote:
> On 2014-01-04 20:01:56 +0100, Matthias Apitz wrote:
> > I'm using mutt (right now by typing) on my FreeBSD netbook, connected
> > via UMTS WAN to my ISP. My mutt drops the mail (this mail) to the local
> > MTA (sendmail) and this takes care for the transport
El día Sunday, January 05, 2014 a las 09:16:02AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan
escribió:
> * Richard Z [01-05-14 08:57]:
> [...]
> > unless you try to do something like multiple email providers for one
> > user which is very easy to do with anything but sendmail/postfix/exim.
> > I have done this on
* Richard Z [01-05-14 08:57]:
[...]
> unless you try to do something like multiple email providers for one
> user which is very easy to do with anything but sendmail/postfix/exim.
> I have done this on all three and got tired, after every system upgrade
> some incompatible change breaks it and e
On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 08:48:50AM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 04Jan2014 20:01, Matthias Apitz wrote:
> > El día Sunday, January 05, 2014 a las 02:50:12AM +0800, Chris Down escribió:
> > > On 2014-01-04 19:35:19 +0100, Ulrich Lauther wrote:
> > > > Recent posts made me aware of the fact, th
On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 02:25:16PM +0800, Chris Down wrote:
> Well, that's exactly what I was recommending -- using something like
> sendmail over something which is designed for far more (Postfix).
Sendmail and Postfix are both MTAs, they both do (essentially) the same
thing.
Cheers,
Tom
--
P
On 2014-01-04 20:01:56 +0100, Matthias Apitz wrote:
> I'm using mutt (right now by typing) on my FreeBSD netbook, connected
> via UMTS WAN to my ISP. My mutt drops the mail (this mail) to the local
> MTA (sendmail) and this takes care for the transport to the next MX hop,
> even if the WAN link is
On 04Jan2014 20:01, Matthias Apitz wrote:
> El día Sunday, January 05, 2014 a las 02:50:12AM +0800, Chris Down escribió:
> > On 2014-01-04 19:35:19 +0100, Ulrich Lauther wrote:
> > > Recent posts made me aware of the fact, that mutt supports SMPT.
> > > So far I have been using postfix for mail tr
El día Sunday, January 05, 2014 a las 02:50:12AM +0800, Chris Down escribió:
> On 2014-01-04 19:35:19 +0100, Ulrich Lauther 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?
>
> "B
On 2014-01-04 19:35:19 +0100, Ulrich Lauther 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?
"Better" is subjective. Using Postfix for this is pretty heavy duty over
using a purpose-bui
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?
Thanks for advice,
ulrich
23 matches
Mail list logo
