[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] external MTA (was: nmh @ gsoc?)
From: |
markus schnalke |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] external MTA (was: nmh @ gsoc?) |
Date: |
Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:59:10 +0100 |
User-agent: |
nmh 1.3 |
[2010-01-28 10:37] Earl Hood <address@hidden>
> On January 28, 2010 at 11:04, markus schnalke wrote:
>
> > Use a simple forwarding MTA (like nullmailer or ssmtp) instead.
>
> IIRC, ssmtp is a command-line replacement of sendmail vs
> running as a daemon. MH/nmh communicate with sendmail via
> the -bs option, something ssmtp does not support I believe.
>
> I have not looked at nullmailer. First I've heard of it.
> Does it support -bs mode of sendmail? Can it run as
> a daemon and accept SMTP connections directly?
-bs mode was what I would like to avoid because this is where SMTP is
involved. Piping the mail (= the output of `list' in the whatnow
prompt) to /usr/sbin/sendmail (= the compatibility interface) is what
I would prefer.
meillo
should nmh be an MTA or an MUA? (Was: Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh @ gsoc?), bergman, 2010/01/27
- Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA? (Was: Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh @ gsoc?), Ken Hornstein, 2010/01/27
- [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, markus schnalke, 2010/01/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, Ken Hornstein, 2010/01/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, Earl Hood, 2010/01/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, markus schnalke, 2010/01/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, Earl Hood, 2010/01/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, Paul Fox, 2010/01/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?, Ken Hornstein, 2010/01/28