Re: Mutt Next Generation
John Franklin <franklin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 20:23 -0500, Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:
> > My preference is that mutt should remain the superb MUA that it is, and
> > not attempt to also be an MTA at all, at all, at all.
>
> I heard this argument from the time I first started using mutt about six
> years ago. Back then I accepted it as good, but since then I've been
> coming around to the other point of view.
I haven't. I still strongly believe that SMTP does not belong in the MUA. I
don't even think POP belongs in it (I'm the author of getmail), but I'm not
beating that particular horse at the moment.
> Back in '99 there was not a whole lot out there that handled MIME
[...]
> Back then, sendmail reigned supreme as the de facto MTA for *NIX
Not exactly -- in '99, sendmail still had a reputation for having a new
security hole every week, and being slow-as-molasses. Many big sites were
using qmail, instead, or trying this newfangled "Postfix" thingie :).
> I think mutt can include basic SMTP support without crossing the line
> into MTA territory.
[...]
> Not full queuing and load management and MX record searching
> SMTP support. It only needs to do three things:
> 1. Send to a single mailserver. All messages -> one server.
> 2. Handle SMTP AUTH & TLS
> 3. Be as simple to setup as IMAP or POP.
Since you can already accomplish this with an external agent like ssmtp, and
integrating it into mutt wouldn't buy you anything, what's the point of
integrating it at all?
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <muttdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------