On 2021-02-01, José María Mateos <ch...@rinzewind.org> wrote: > I was thinking about this. I have offlineimap running, so I have a > local copy of all my mail, but the SMTP connection still goes > through my mail provider, not locally. While I can appreciate the > increase in speed that a local rely can offer, I wonder if it > doesn't add another layer of complexity
It definitely does. > as I would have to be monitoring the logs to make sure the e-mail > was actually sent. You do (or you need to make sure that you receive bounce/retry/failure notices properly). > How does it work when the remote e-mail server is not available or > it returns some kind of error. Can one receive local messages that > notify of a problem? If you set up your local MTA properly, yes. However, that's not trivial. I maintained a local queueing MTA for many years, but after multiple screwups where mail wasn't getting sent (and I didn't find out in a timely manner) I switched to a non-queueing MTA (e.g. ssmtp) and later to mutt's SMTP support. My internet connection is reliable enough that the benefits of knowing that each email has actually been sent _far_ outweigh the inconvienience of having to manually resend something once every 5-6 years. > So far I like my current solution because it avoid this: sending an > e-mail takes a few seconds (very few, 2 - 3 tops) but when the process > is done on mutt I know the remote server has the e-mail. Exactly. -- Grant
