I mean -- both Mutt and fetchmail require an MTA[1], but fetchmail uses SMTP to access it (IIRC to avoid problems with different command line arguments for different MTAs etc.). Mutt also needs an MTA, but it goes with the command line solution. And there are problems with this solution -- witness the recent questions about RFC-822 addresses containing spaces and the requirement for special wrapper scripts to make them work with qmail. --- [1] It can be argued, that fetchmail needs an MDA, not an MTA... but the thing listening on port 25 is usually an MTA. On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 11:44:34AM -0400, David T-G wrote: > The mutt equivalent of fetchmail talking to SMTP would be mutt talking to > port 25 only on your machine, and therefore only after you had set up an > MTA already. Exactly. And this leads to the next trick question: what's the difference between talking to localhost:25 or remotehost:25? :) It's not that I advocate adding SMTP support to Mutt [2], but I just wonder, why two programs following the same Unix philosophy (do one thing well) choose so different solutions [3] for so similair tasks -- handing an email to an MTA. --- [2] Well, that would be a nice thing to have if I try to compile it on WinNT again ;) [3] I know that fetchmail can feed the email to an external program instead of localhost:25, but the default way is SMTP. BTW in the standard Unix world (MDA/MUA/MTA), where does fetchmail fit in? Marius Gedminas -- All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand.
