-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 11:02:21PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > > Really now? I saw some paranoid concerns, but that doesn't address > > issues with using your own MTA. > > Nice to see that my valid problems are chalked up as nothing but paranoia.
Explain what validates said non-issues? > > Why waste the effort half-implimenting a MTA when you can use an > > existing one much more readily? > > Because a client should speak the protocols it needs to get the job done > and, news flash, in spite of how much you or others say it "use an existing > one much more readily" isn't going to make it possible for most people to do > just that. And what business does a client have speaking an inter-server protocol? - -- .''`. Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' : proud Debian admin and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/GODcJ5vLSqVpK2kRAo/rAJwIuSM+cr4wZ8RPXBu74qluVHTlZQCeJPkK t3THUn7Mi9YExpKaaRDI0MQ= =dq9h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
