On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 09:27, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 06:51:12PM +1000, Brian May wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:35:29AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > > > IMHO using any local mailer is a bad idea on a desktop system. You send > > > off the mail, your MUA says "Sent", you power down or just close the > > > laptop, and, if your smarthost happens to be a bit slow today, the mail > > > sits there indefinitely. > > > Unless it is something like SSMTP... > > > SSMTP has no queue and sends E-Mail immediately to a smarthost. > > And is a much better choice than expecting every user to locally > configure smtp settings in the MUA. Lack of direct-SMTP support in mutt > is a good thing.
SSMTP is not acceptable for those of us that use SMTP AUTH+TLS, unless it supports those (it didn't, last time I looked). In fact, there don't appear to be any "dumb" MTAs (like ssmtp or nullmailer) that support TLS and SMTP authentication. This is why I can't use Mutt anymore. -- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
