I think you're conflating things. A mail server speaks SMTP for both inbound and outbound, IMAP/POP/webmail is all part of the user interface stack... as would be the webforum component in any mailing list/web forum scheme.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019, 20:45 Warren Young, <war...@etr-usa.com> wrote: > On Oct 14, 2019, at 3:04 PM, Keith Medcalf <kmedc...@dessus.com> wrote: > > > > On Monday, 14 October, 2019 14:18, Warren Young <war...@etr-usa.com> > wrote: > > > >> Fossil Forums allow you to subscribe to email notifications. From the > >> reader’s perspective, it’s really very little different from the current > >> Mailman based scheme. > > > > The preceding paragraph is completely at odds with the following > paragraph, and taken together, they are completely illogical and > inconsistent. > > You’re conflating inbound and outbound paths. The ability to send email > implies but does not require the ability to receive email. > > ...Which is why they’re often entirely different stacks, speaking > different protocols! E.g. SMTP outbound via Postfix, IMAP inbound via > Dovecot. > > > All it needs is to be able to "read and process" RFC-2822 formatted > message files that are found in an "inbound for me” directory > > That’s certainly one way that some email servers work. The most common > such scheme is called Maildir. > > But there’s probably at least half a dozen other ways it can work: mbox, > MySQL store, PostgreSQL store, whatever it is that MS Exchange does that’s > incompatible with the rest of the world… > > There are currently four supported outbound email setups in Fossil, and a > stub for a fifth: > > https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/alerts.md#advanced > > Why would inbound be different? > > Fossil isn’t in a position where it can require a specific SMTP server. > It has to run on pretty much every common desktop and server platform. You > have to get pretty far down the long tail of OSes before you find one that > Fossil doesn’t get used on daily by someone. Therefore, we have to support > approximately everything. > > On top of integrating with all common SMTP stacks, drh long ago stated a > wish to write his own SMTP server. (The latter being why Fossil has the > start of one included!) This should not surprise you if you’ve followed > his career. :) > > The last time I counted up the pages of RFCs you have to implement to > speak to a large fraction of the Internet email infrastructure — which was > one of the times this argument came up on this mailing list! — it was > something like 500 pages of standardese. It is not just RFC-2822. Getting > to something useful will take time, which comes out of the time budget for > SQLite, Fossil, etc. > > There is the option of writing glue software between Fossil and whatever > SMTP infrastructure you already have, but no one’s bothered to do that in > the year or so that Fossil Forums have been in steady use. To me, that > speaks more of the desirability of inbound email submission than about its > inherent difficulty. > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
