On Sunday 10 October 2004 14:58, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 01:21:44PM +0200, Christian Surchi wrote: > > Il sab, 2004-10-09 alle 17:48, martin f krafft ha scritto: > > > > I think it's not a right comparison, nullmail is an MTA. and > > > > AFAIK, msmtp is not an MTA: > > > > > > it transports mail to the next relay, right? > > > nullmailer is a "simple relay-only mail transport agent." > > > > > > what's the difference? > > > > Deep difference. Our mail-transport-agents are able to behave as daemon, > > listening on 25 port. > > This is not true, since not required by policy. Policy says:
The policy does not define what a MTA is, but requires that all MTA packages have newalises command although it might do nothing. IMHO a MTA must be capable acts as a client and as a server to transfer messages between machines and is responsible for properly routing messages to their destination, e.g. RFC 974. msmtp does not do all of these, therefor it is not a MTA, and might have nothing to do with /usr/sbin/sendmail. > 11.6. Mail transport, delivery and user agents > > | (...) the interface to send a mail message is `/usr/sbin/sendmail' (as > | per the FHS). Right, and that is mandated when you have a MTA with features like described above. This does not mean that telnet is a MTA when invoked like: /usr/bin/telnet mail.host.dom 25 ehlo blabla mail from: _sender_ rcpt to: _recipient_ data write some bits mail-a
