On 05Jan2014 14:25, Chris Down <ch...@chrisdown.name> wrote:
> On 2014-01-04 20:01:56 +0100, Matthias Apitz wrote:
> > I'm using mutt (right now by typing) on my FreeBSD netbook, connected
> > via UMTS WAN to my ISP. My mutt drops the mail (this mail) to the local
> > MTA (sendmail) and this takes care for the transport to the next MX hop,
> > even if the WAN link is down; the mail gets queued until the link comes
> > up again. I think this, queuing, is a big advantage over talking SMTP
> > directly by mutt.
>
> Well, that's exactly what I was recommending -- using something like
> sendmail over something which is designed for far more (Postfix).
Sendmail and postfix are vaguely equally functional. The debate
isn't particularly over which to use (though postfix is far far
easier to configure), the debate's abot having a local mail system
which queues and sends versus having mutt send directly (and fail
when offline).
> I typically don't use my computer when offline, so having a local mail
> queue would not be a big win for me over occasionally having to save
> outgoing e-mails to a local file when offline (which has happened about
> twice in the last two years).
Personally, I expect my laptop to work when offline.
Certainly I can code offline, and my commit hooks send email (to me!)
Plenty of other examples.
Cheers,
--
Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au>
Microsoft is not the ANSWER.
Microsoft is the QUESTION,
and the ANSWER is NO! - roland.gier...@aut.alcatel.at
