On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:59:38PM EST, Jens Paulus wrote: > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 15:24:51 -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote: > > > for people who are not always connected to an ISP it would be practical > > > to have a special mailfolder for queued outgoing mail like many GUI mail > > > programs have it. > > > > The outgoing queue is managed by your MTA. There's no need for an MUA to > > have > > one. GUI MUAs tend to inherit this idea from poorer OSes which don't tend > > to > > even /have/ an MTA on the system, so they have to each implement a > > half-assed > > version -- mutt definitely has no need to imitate this design error. > > that the outgoing queue is managed by my MTA is not new to me and I know > this and have described this in text. So your reply is no help on this > topic. Nevertheless I think it would be practical if postponed messages > could be send without reediting it before. This would have the same > effect than having a mailqueue mailfolder and would be an easy solution. You seem to be missing the point that overloading a folder is BAD. If there's a command to send a postponed message without editing it (which is a most UNtypical action for an MUA (as opposed to an MTA), since the only reason for a USER to postpone a message is if he hasn't finished it, and he sure doesn't want to ship off a half-written message by mistake!) and you decide to implement a mail sending thingy that takes advantage of this "feature," what happens when the guy uses his postponed folder for its legitimate purpose, leaves his half-written message in there, and decides to do a queue run on his "outbox" (a.k.a. postponed folder)? It's important to always keep in mind the difference between an MUA and an MTA. - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgp9bIIejknCF.pgp
Description: PGP signature