Re: Hamm: Exim + Chos standard?
email@example.com (Mark Baker) wrote on 13.06.97 in <E0wcXDLfirstname.lastname@example.org>:
> In article <email@example.com>,
> Alexander Koch <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Both qmail (which proved insecure <most evil grin>) and Exim are not
> > capable of UUCP or even bang paths! So a lot of those guys in countries
> > where phone costs are terrible (like in Germany) still use it and they
> > WILL have a problem then.
> Exim is not capable of bang paths, true, but not many people still use them.
> It _is_ capable of uucp so long as you use domain addressing. Admittedly it
> is not obvious how to set it up to do so.
Well, that just means we either include that in the eximconfig, or
somewhere in /usr/doc/exim, doesn't it?
The way I understand the docs, exim should be quite able to do the very
common case of a site with a permanent net connection feeding lots of UUCP
leaf sites. True, if you need map handling, then you'll probably be better
off with a different MTA (or maybe you can even hack that one into exim -
I don't know if anybody has tried this).
Me, I won't weep a single tear for bang paths and map handling.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .