On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 02:23:31PM +0100, Richard Z wrote: > On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 04:48:18PM +0000, Grant Edwards wrote: > > On 2014-01-04, Ulrich Lauther <ulrich.laut...@t-online.de> wrote: > > Do you need/want outbound messages to be queued if they can't be sent > > immediately? If yes, then you need a "real" MTA like postfix. > > not really. msmtp and esmtp have queueing. > > > Do all outbound messages get sent to a single relay host for routing? > > If no, then you need a "real" MTA. > > more precisely if you need direct delivery as opposed to using one or > several smarthosts. > > On the other hand, each of bultin mutt, mstmp and esmtp provide support for > several smarthosts much easier than real MTAs.
Actually, for sake of argument, both msmtp and esmtp qualifies as MTA - in contrast to mutt. However they could probably be labeled as relay(-only) MTAs, compared to postfix, sendmail, EXIM, qmail and the like. Noones arguing against using [me]smtp as the "real MTA" in this scenario :-) -- kchr |_|O|_| |_|_|O| Kim Christensen |O|O|O| http://technopragmatics.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- () ascii ribbon campain - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
