In the message dated: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:53:46 EST,
The pithy ruminations from Ken Hornstein on
Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA? (Was: Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh @ gsoc?) were
:
= Have we not beaten this subject into the ground yet?
=
= Here's where we differ. For me, it's easier to configure
The problem, as I see it, is limited resources for maintaining and enhancing
nmh, as evidenced by the slow pace of development. The question that's being
posed is where it is best to spend those limited resources. I suggest that
adding MTA functions into nmh which already exist in external
Ken Hornstein wrote:
I'm not going to spend half my day reading RFCs to see just how MTA is
defined. [...]
Well, I'm sorry ... if you don't understand exactly _what_ am MTA is, then
how do you expect to participate in a discussion about them? I mean, you're
the one who changed the subject
I think the difficulty may depending on the TLS library to use.
When I looked at years ago wrt openssl, it appeared to me that the
work require rewriting I/O stuff in nmh. Of course, I was not an
expert at the time, but I did not see a quick fix to the problem.
Recently (post-1.3) I made a bunch
In the message dated: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:01:26 EST,
The pithy ruminations from valdis.kletni...@vt.edu on
Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh @ gsoc? were:
=
= On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:21:10 +0100, markus schnalke said:
= TLS seems to be already solved. However, why does nmh need TLS?
= Doesn't it
Have we not beaten this subject into the ground yet?
Here's where we differ. For me, it's easier to configure sendmail, so that
the nmh configuration remains the same in any network environment.
Alright ... so, my answer to this is: So what?
Yes, it's easier for _you_. Great. But that doesn't
