Re: getmail vs fetchmail, WAS: Re: fetchmail and DNS resolution
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 2009-04-03 08:54, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > On Fri,03.Apr.09, 04:22:11, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >> On 2009-04-03 02:06, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>> AFAIK fetchmail defaults to delivering your mail by using a local SMTP.
> >>> This is a Bad Thing (tm), because it can create a lot of problems,
> >>> YMMV
> >> How so? It (fetchmail->Postfix/SpamAssassin->maildrop->~/Maildir) has
> >> been working perfectly on my system for 4 years.
> > Let me quote Charles Cazabon (ok, he's the author of getmail, but sure
> > knows a lot about mail handling):
> Smells of Appeal To Authority.
> A morally superior person like me would *never* do that!!!!
It sounds to me like something I just read recently, about the whole
'considered harmful' slag.
> > ,----
> > | NOTE: DO NOT USE "sendmail" (or any other MTA queue-injection command) AS
> > YOUR | DELIVERY INSTRUCTION. Unless you're a mail expert (and you're not),
> > | re-injection of retrieved mail (with getmail or other agents) is virtually
> > | guaranteed to cause one or more of lost mail, misdirected mail, bad late
> > | bounces, leakage of delivery information, and other problems.
> > `----
> Maybe getmail has a design flaw, or CC thinks that everyone still
> uses Sendmail.
> > This was just a few days ago on the official getmail mailing list, in
> > reply to someone asking how to use the MTA for delivery. If you are
> > interested in more details search the archives of the getmail list.
> What the heck is an MTA for??? Right: transporting mail, usually on
> port 25. Postfix does a wonderfully boring job of receiving from
> fetchmail and cron, linking to SpamAssassin, then sending to my MDA.