"Uri Guttman" <u...@stemsystems.com> writes: > yes. it will be more portable (you have sendmail's path hard wired > and it varies). they can use other mailers (i have qmail). they can > use smtp directly to your isp's server (not calling a local > server). they have more options and are easier to understand. they > don't use global filehandles (well, you could use a lexical handle > too.
At first, I wasn't concerned about portability, since the script is only intended for use on my home machine by me, but then with your prompting I realized; I might have changed MTA 5-6 yrs from now myself. And could very likely still be using this script. I hadn't ever thought about portability in quite that way before. Always thinking in terms of other machines, remotes, other users etc. > HP> Not sure what you are suggesting to do there. I mean other than ditch > HP> the code in favor of a module. Do you mean to put the `die' after the > HP> CLOSE? > > either is better. your code needs to check the close in case your open > to sendmail fails. and use a module instead for the whole thing. > > HP> Even without that though, wouldn't any errors at CLOSE still print to > HP> stderr? > > what errors? perl doesn't print system errors, it returns them in $! Aack... what a dope... yeah of course. ... its a system call Thanks -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-h...@perl.org http://learn.perl.org/
