David Hart wrote: > It proves the point that T.J. Duchene made to which you gave those > examples in reply. Here's what was said (and what you snipped from your > reply to me):
Can we say... "out of context"?
>> T.J. Duchene wrote:
>>
>>> Don't expect Outlook, Thunderbird, Mutt, Pine, or even Evolution to
>>> do
>>> anything more than simple blob sorts or spam checking.
> There's no mention of "full-blown MTA".
Really? Did you read earlier in his message? Let's review.
>>> Not to sound off too much here when I haven't been part of the
>>> conversation, but MUA's aren't really designed to stop spam or perform
>>> message sorting.
"MUAs aren't really designed..." which leaves what exactly?
>>> I can say that with some confidence since I spend a reasonable
>>> percentage of my time programming mail servers for ISPs.
Hmmm, direct mention of mail servers, AKA, MTAs.
>>> ladies and gentlemen, the most practical mail filtering or sorting is
>>> almost always done server side before your MUA even gets the mail.
Another reference to MTAs this time as "server side".
>>> My humble advice to those who care...learn to use SpamAssassin (or some
>>> other milter), procmail, ClamAV or even MailScanner (for the opensource
>>> server admin crowd).
His humble advice which includes a direct mention of a milter (which is
commonly used as a hook off the MTA), procmail (which is useless without an
MTA) and MailScanner... "for the opensource *SERVER* admin crowd", emphasis
mine.
Were the three letters Emm Tee Aye mentioned in his post. Nope. You're
accurate on that. But in a Micheal Moore-ish twisting of facts you're
ignoring that the overall context of the message is heavily slanted to MTAs.
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do...
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
