On 2012-08-06 12:35:09 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> Urgent + e-mail = fail (not guaranteed fail, but a much higher chance
> of fail than you want with something that's urgent).
Based on *experience* at home and at work, direct SMTP access is
much more reliable than using the gateway.
BTW, for my
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:34:27PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2012-08-05 22:10:22 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > Also the notion of urgent e-mail is kind of crazy. As you say, every
> > ISP can have problems. That includes becomming completely unroutable.
> > E-mail is designed to fail --
Hello!
Vincent Lefevre has written on Monday, 6 August, at 15:21:
>Anyway, whether the ISP allows direct SMTP access (in France, there's
>the choice) or not, a MTA (or the package from the OS distribution)
>should be easy to configure for the most common uses; this is the case
>in Debian, wit
On 2012-08-06 12:09:30 +0300, Andrej N. Gritsenko wrote:
> I'm afraid it isn't only in NA but in Europe too as many of providers
> these times prevent unsolicited mail and troyans from windoze users by
> disabling SMTP and NetBOIS outgoing traffic by default but enabling it
> only if user expli
On 2012-08-05 22:06:53 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:58:19AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > But when the ISP's mail gateway is down or is blacklisted because of
> > > > spammers, the users wouldn't know what to do.
> > >
> > > Of course they do. Call their ISP and
On 2012-08-05 22:10:22 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:58:19AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > This is a silly answer. Every ISP can have problems one time or
> > another! Complaining or getting a new ISP won't solve the problem
> > if one has an urgent mail to send.
>
>
On 2012-08-05 21:55:46 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 04:12:48AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > By switching the MTA config to direct (e.g. by answering the same
> > questions as above), the user won't need to call his ISP, in
> > particular if this is at night or if the IS
Hello!
Derek Martin has written on Sunday, 5 August, at 22:06:
>On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:58:19AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> An ISP is there to provide full, unfiltered Internet access. If the
>> user has chosen as ISP that blocks some ports, that's his problem.
>You'd better stay in
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:58:19AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> This is a silly answer. Every ISP can have problems one time or
> another! Complaining or getting a new ISP won't solve the problem
> if one has an urgent mail to send.
Also the notion of urgent e-mail is kind of crazy. As you sa
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:58:19AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > But when the ISP's mail gateway is down or is blacklisted because of
> > > spammers, the users wouldn't know what to do.
> >
> > Of course they do. Call their ISP and complain to them to get it
> > fixed, or get a new ISP.
>
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 04:12:48AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> By switching the MTA config to direct (e.g. by answering the same
> questions as above), the user won't need to call his ISP, in
> particular if this is at night or if the ISP's gateway is blacklisted
> (sometimes for a wrong reason
On 2012-08-05 20:43:21 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 08:24:23PM +0200, Rado Q wrote:
> > > It's superfluous, for the overwhelming majority of users.
> >
> > If they were more "aware" they'd not be easy prey for phishing and
> > the like or minor technical issues.
>
> Learni
On 2012-08-05 18:03:59 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 08:41:28PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2012-08-05 11:04:03 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > > That is why people use Mutt... NOT so that they can learn about
> > > obscure networking protocols. All they need to know
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 08:24:23PM +0200, Rado Q wrote:
> > It's superfluous, for the overwhelming majority of users.
>
> If they were more "aware" they'd not be easy prey for phishing and
> the like or minor technical issues.
Learning how to set up an SMTP client, let alone a full MTA, is not
go
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 08:41:28PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2012-08-05 11:04:03 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > That is why people use Mutt... NOT so that they can learn about
> > obscure networking protocols. All they need to know
> > is how to configure their e-mail client to talk to th
On 2012-08-05 11:04:03 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> This isn't my comment... Maybe you do not know as much about e-mail
> as you think you do. =8^) I'm teasing here, but there's a
> pont here: knowing the basics of how STMP works is really irrelevant
> to the average user, and is not really he
=- Derek Martin wrote on Sun 5.Aug'12 at 11:04:03 -0500 -=
> > > If you have to configure sendmail to talk SMTP on the MSP
> > > port, enable STARTTLS, pop-before-smtp, etc. you need to learn
> > > a lot about sendmail. No one should need to do that just to be
> > > able to send an e-mail.
> >
>
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 01:01:10AM +0200, Rado Q wrote:
> > > Using built-in SMTP-client or a standalone SMTP-client doesn't
> > > make a difference for the ISP, it can't tell what software
> > > executes the SMTP.
> >
> > No, but it makes a difference to the USER. Mutt is already hard to
> > conf
In reply to eMail from 2012-07-30 17:42:32 when Derek Martin wrote:
> > > {...} and because the internet landscape has made it hard for
> > > users to run their own services (thank you, spammers).
> >
> > Using built-in SMTP-client or a standalone SMTP-client doesn't
> > make a difference for the
On 2012-08-03 22:51:08 -0700, Phil Pennock wrote:
> Mail submission from an MUA should be going to the submission port
> (587/tcp) and probably authenticating with SMTP AUTH; if not
> AUTHenticating, it should be on a trusted IP and implicitly
> authenticated by being on an internal network.
That
I'm mostly avoiding this conversation, as I avoid most, because my mutt
contributions are at the level of "several patches, only a few accepted
into mutt itself". One point I'll comment on, with my MTA
developer/maintainer hat on:
On 2012-08-02 at 16:38 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
On Tuesday, July 31 at 02:41 PM, quoth Vincent Lefevre:
I would rather see a standalone SMTP-client (possibly designed for
Mutt users) than a built-in SMTP-client:
There *is* one! It's called msmtp. :) On their wiki, they say "It was
designed with Mutt in mind, which is where the M came from".
On 2012-07-31 12:46:33 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:41:07PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > No-one is forced to use sendmail. Is there any advantage of using
> > a built-in SMTP-client instead of a standalone SMTP-client? By
> > that, I mean: is there any advantage of h
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:41:07PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2012-07-30 12:42:32 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > No, but it makes a difference to the USER. Mutt is already hard to
> > configure. If you have to configure sendmail to talk SMTP on the MSP
> > port, enable STARTTLS, pop-befor
On 2012-07-30 12:42:32 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 11:19:25AM +0200, Rado Q wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:51:54AM +0200, Fredrik Gustafsson wrote:
> > > > Just of curiosity, why are mutt moving away from a mua to a full email
> > > > program with mail fetching and
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 11:19:25AM +0200, Rado Q wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:51:54AM +0200, Fredrik Gustafsson wrote:
> > > Just of curiosity, why are mutt moving away from a mua to a full email
> > > program with mail fetching and mail sending.
> >
> > {...} and because the internet lan
=- Kyle Wheeler wrote on Sat 28.Jul'12 at 11:34:35 -0600 -=
> So we're agreed, then: mutt shall continue to allow you to use a
> sendmail-style program and will not require you to even compile
> smtp support! :)
Heh...
... you know, once the dark side has been opened, everything will
eventually f
On Saturday, July 28 at 11:19 AM, quoth Rado Q:
I like things to be simple & easy to use, too.
But within its own area of operation.
I prefer modular solutions to use them as _I_ like them, gives me
more power, less dependence on fixed or not easily changed features.
So we're agreed, then: mut
=- Derek Martin wrote on Fri 27.Jul'12 at 13:38:38 -0500 -=
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:51:54AM +0200, Fredrik Gustafsson wrote:
> > Just of curiosity, why are mutt moving away from a mua to a full email
> > program with mail fetching and mail sending.
>
> {...} and because the internet landscap
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:51:54AM +0200, Fredrik Gustafsson wrote:
> Just of curiosity, why are mutt moving away from a mua to a full email
> program with mail fetching and mail sending.
Because MUAs really need to do those things in order to be considered
fully functional, and because the intern
Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 07:59:08AM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> Haven't noticed the *movement* you cite. I have used mutt since leaving
> os/2 for linux > 10 years ago and it had those capabilities then, if
> memory serves.
Well, there were times when Mutt wasn't able to send mail using plain
SM
* Fredrik Gustafsson [07-25-12 04:54]:
> Just of curiosity, why are mutt moving away from a mua to a full email
> program with mail fetching and mail sending.
Haven't noticed the *movement* you cite. I have used mutt since leaving
os/2 for linux > 10 years ago and it had those capabilities then,
Hi
Just of curiosity, why are mutt moving away from a mua to a full email
program with mail fetching and mail sending.
--
Med vänliga hälsningar
Fredrik Gustafsson
tel: 0733-608274
e-post: iv...@iveqy.com
33 matches
Mail list logo
