On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 07:56:48PM -0400, Bijan Soleymani wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 05:08:04PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote: > > > And leave out key parts of the protocol, no. Implement the entire > > protocol or don't do it. And as far as I'm concerned an MUA > > shouldn't speak SMTP at all, there is absolutely no need for it. > > Many people these days want to send mail through a smarthost. They > retrieve mail from a remote POP or IMAP account and have no need for > the receiving part of an MTA (they don't receive mail locally). If you > receive mail remotely (at the POP or IMAP server) then it only makes > sense to have a remote machine handle your outgoing mail as well (SMTP > smarthost).
And none of that requires the MUA to support SMTP. Take a look at nullmailer, seems like a good fit for your above description. > IMHO if a MUA (client) implements POP it is already doing much more than > you think it should be doing. If MUAs doing POP is logical then MUA > sending mail through SMTP to a smarthost is also logical. Apples and oranges, but ideally an MUA doesn't need POP or IMAP support no. -- Jamin W. Collins -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
