Re: Balsa + libESMTP patch

[Carlos Morgado <chbm chbm nu>]

On 2001.05.02 18:20:19 +0100 Brian Stafford wrote:
> On Wed,  2 May 17:37 Carlos Morgado wrote:
> 
> | > Given that a reliable SMTP client is available for posting mail,
> | > why does one need sendmail to do it instead?
> | >  
> | surely you don't sugest we remove the local mta option from balsa ?
> 
> Why not?  Nothing is lost.
> 
yes, it is. it keeps people that use multiple isps from sending mail
without pains.
what is the rationale for removing it ?

> | it's the other way around. it allows you to have 1 configuration
> | for all muas you use. some people do use more than 1 mua. 
> 
> All the MUAs connect to the same MTA (or MSA in RFC 2476's language),
> don't they?
> 
no. they invoke them localy. which is totally diferent from conecting to
localhost on a desktop machine.

> | having muas knowing smtp is even debatled from a design stand point
> | and can only be defended for convinience, not correcteness.
> 
> I disagree.  By your argument the MUA should not know how to do
> POP or IMAP either.  Internet applications are connected by the
> protocols, not the traditional way of doing things in Unix.
> 
imap is designed to be included in a mua. pop3 not so much, and i wouldn't
mind seeing it off a mua (indeed i use fetchmail)
since balsa is a unix app, it should do things the unix way.

> | > | as for flexibility, can you do per domain routing for instance ? 
> | > 
> | > No.  And this will never become part of libESMTP.  Its for posting
> | > mail remember.  Per domain routing is an MTA function.  Besides,
> | > it's a bad idea when the user is stuck behind a firewall which
> | blocks
> | > port 25 to the outside world.
> | > 
> | some people need it in weird setups. another example is weird per user
> | header rewrites (granted, you can do that on a smtp enabled mua)
> 
> Read RFC 2476.  It discusses this very topic.
> 
that's neat when you control the MSA. i'm talking about every other situation,
where you either don't control or don't want to mess with it.

> | understand
> | my objections are about an overnight change, and about the options
> | balsa
> | should
> | present to users not about using libesmtp itself.
> 
> Right now, its only a patch - the first step towards integrating
> libESMTP into Balsa - offered in the hope that people will try it
> and offer constructive criticism of the code both regarding my
> changes to Balsa and in libESMTP itself.
> 

and thus my request for a --with option. or, with less visibility but
more ease a branch. imho your patch, as was, could not be commited
to the main branch of cvs *now*.

cheers

-- 
Carlos Morgado - chbm(at)chbm(dot)nu - http://chbm.nu/ -- gpgkey: 0x1FC57F0A
http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ FP:0A27 35D3 C448 3641 0573 6876 2A37 4BB2 1FC5 7F0A
Software is like sex; it's better when it's free. - Linus Torvalds