[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: which MTA to choose for a simple client?



Curt:
> On 2013-10-09, Jochen Spieker <ml@well-adjusted.de> wrote:
>> 
>> SMTP is still the most common way to send e-mails (even if the user
>> doesn't see it). Some IMAP servers can send e-mails on their users'
>> behalf when mails are save into a special folder, but not all servers do
>> that.
> 
> What? I use SMTP.  You don't need Exim in order to use the smtp server of your isp.
> It's plugged into my alpine (smtp.free.fr).

I didn't want to imply you need an MTA to talk to your ISP's smart host.
I just wanted to answer to your question:

>>> What use do you find for an MTA if you're using IMAP?

What I wanted to say was that IMAP does not replace either SMTP or a
locally running MTA.  But my implicit assumption that mutt doesn't speak
SMTP was wrong. It actually does. Never used that.

I still advise anyone to run a local MTA, even if only for mails from
cron etc. But that is a matter of taste.

>>> As far as having multiple smart hosts, alpine (my mail client) handles
>>> that with "roles" easily enough.  I'm sure (well, I'm optimistic) Mutt
>>> can do the same thing.
>> 
>> There are solutions, but they are not really nice.
> 
> ?? They are simple, tried, and true.

There are hooks which let you re-configure arbitrary configuration items
for certain events. Yes, very flexible, but also a little fiddly. I
prefer a central solution, but that, again, is a matter of taste.

J.
-- 
I frequently find myself at the top of the stairs with absolutely
nothing happening in my brain.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
                 <http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: