Re: OT: why I don't want CCs
On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 07:56:48PM -0400, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 05:08:04PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
>
> > And leave out key parts of the protocol, no. Implement the entire
> > protocol or don't do it. And as far as I'm concerned an MUA
> > shouldn't speak SMTP at all, there is absolutely no need for it.
>
> Many people these days want to send mail through a smarthost. They
> retrieve mail from a remote POP or IMAP account and have no need for
> the receiving part of an MTA (they don't receive mail locally). If you
> receive mail remotely (at the POP or IMAP server) then it only makes
> sense to have a remote machine handle your outgoing mail as well (SMTP
> smarthost).
And none of that requires the MUA to support SMTP. Take a look at
nullmailer, seems like a good fit for your above description.
> IMHO if a MUA (client) implements POP it is already doing much more than
> you think it should be doing. If MUAs doing POP is logical then MUA
> sending mail through SMTP to a smarthost is also logical.
Apples and oranges, but ideally an MUA doesn't need POP or IMAP support
no.
--
Jamin W. Collins
Reply to: