Re: Should MUA only Recommend mail-transfer-agent?
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:03:07PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Steve Lamb <grey@dmiyu.org> [030806 13:43]:
> > On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:10:03 +0200
> > "Bernhard R. Link" <blink@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
> > > If mutt spoke SMTP, it would be a MTA itself. (Perhaps still missing
> > > the proper interface to link /usr/lib/sendmail to mutt, but that would
> > > be the lesser part).
> >
> > No, it would not. It would be using another method of accessing an MTA.
> > Just because Mozilla speaks HTTP, HTTPS and FTP doesn't make it a web server,
> > a secure web server and an ftp server.
>
> Perhaps we disagree what MTA means. I consider for example ssmpt to be a
> MTA. (And judging from the package-description, it's maintainer seems
> to believe the same).
So netscape and pine, both of which contain an SMTP /client/, are MTAs??
Your definition does not seem to be shared by many people then.
Generally, an MTA is able to do the MX lookup, has a queue, and a few
methods of injecting messages into that queue, perhaps via
/usr/lib/sendmail -t or through SMTP.
I would not consider anything that contains a SMTP client an MTA. A
proxy that handles port 25 is no MTA either. Such strict definitions
('talks SMTP') are generally not very useful.
Cheers,
Emile.
--
E-Advies - Emile van Bergen emile@e-advies.nl
tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 http://www.e-advies.nl
Reply to: