In the message dated: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:01:26 EST,
The pithy ruminations from Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu on
<Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh @ gsoc?> were:
=>
=> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:21:10 +0100, markus schnalke said:
=> > TLS seems to be already solved. However, why does nmh need TLS?
=> > Doesn't it delegate mail transfer to an MTA?
Personally, I agree.
=>
=> You may need it to talk to a remote MTA that insists on doing TLS. And
=> there's valid use cases for it.
=>
=> Half the time my laptop is at home, so letting my local sendmail do the
=> delivery isn't workable, lot of sites whinge at the fact that it's a
cablemodem
I'm in the same position....my laptop is the primary machine, and it's often on
different networks, with varying outbound filtering.
=> address. So if I want my mail delivered, my easiest is to forward through the
=> MTA here at work. And it was easier to just tell nmh to forward rather than
=> have it point at the local sendmail and reconfig that to forward.
Here's where we differ. For me, it's "easier" to configure sendmail, so that the
nmh configuration remains the same in any network environment. There's already
extensive support in popular MTAs (sendmail, postfix, etc.) for multiple
delivery mechanisms (TLS, POP-before-SMTP, SMTP AUTH, MSA, etc), so
this doesn't need to be duplicated in nmh. I prefer to let the MTA accept mail
from nmh and then do the external transfer for me.
Another advantage with this method is that it works with any process on my
machine that wants to send mail (ie., log file monitor, the SteelVine software
that monitors the health of my attached RAID array, calendar program that sends
monthly reminders, etc.).
Mark
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers