Vineet Kumar wrote:
>
...
> > decision I disagree with. And seeing as that screening server has
> > already had three significant downtimes in the past month I'd like to
> > bypass it altogether.
>
> Before you spend a lot of time and energy downloading and compiling
> something of your own, m
* Nate Johnston ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010813 05:34]:
> Suresh Ramasubramanian spake thus: (Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 07:51:11AM +0530)
>
> > Nate Johnston [mutt-users] <10/08/01 14:51 -0500>:
> > > I am running mutt, but I do not want to submit my mail to the running
> > > Sendmail daemon for reliabil
Nate Johnston [mutt-users] <13/08/01 07:28 -0500>:
> This is a multi-user system and I do not have superuser priveliges. My
> impression is that compiling and installing a home-directory local copy
> of sendmail is an exercise best avoided if possible.
Then you are better off with Masqmail /
> My issue is not with sendmail, per se, but with a new set of policies
> that have been implemented locally. Redirecting all mail from the Unix
> host to a Windows NT machine to be virus and "content" screened is a
> decision I disagree with. And seeing as that screening server has
> already
Suresh Ramasubramanian spake thus: (Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 07:51:11AM +0530)
> Nate Johnston [mutt-users] <10/08/01 14:51 -0500>:
> > I am running mutt, but I do not want to submit my mail to the running
> > Sendmail daemon for reliability reasons. I am looking for a utility
>
> Erm, how (un)rel
