Re: Balsa + libESMTP patch

[Carlos Morgado <chbm chbm nu>]

On 2001.05.02 09:09:15 +0100 Brian Stafford wrote:
> On Tue,  1 May 23:09 Carlos Morgado wrote:
> 
> | > Attached is a patch which replaces the use of sendmail and
> | > Balsa's original SMTP client with libESMTP.
> | > 
> | > You will need to obtain at least version 0.6.1 of libESMTP
> | > from http://www.stafford.uklinux.net/libesmtp/ to use this
> | > patch.
> | > 
> | The patch doesn't add a --with-libesmtp, does it ? It should :)
> 
> I don't see why.  The libESMTP patch is a *replacement* for the
> existing code.  Balsa's existing SMTP client is buggy and does
> not comply with RFC 821.  Piping messages into sendmail is
> inflexible and requires a complex MTA installation just to
> post mail, especially on a workstation which has no need for
> an MTA.
> 

Otoh it works for most people (doesn't it? people ?) and doesn't require 
extra stuff. If you look closely gss and ssl and gtkhtml are compile 
time options. that's cause ssl doesn't work now, gtkthml is buggy and 
gss isn't widely deployed. this is the case with libesmtp. mind i'd 
rather have spell checking as a compile option too. 
I'd rather see a transition period with a --with option until people
catch on with it.
(btw, the configure stuff in your patch is broken, doesn't stop 
when it doesn't find libesmtp - well, at least didn't work for me)

> I have been using the patched Balsa for upwards of two months now
> in various configurations with many SMTP servers with no problems.
> I decided it was time the wider community had the opportunity to
> try it.  Bottom line is if you don't like the patch, don't apply it.
> 
oh. i assumed you wanted the patch merged on the cvs. sorry then.
maybe a temporary cvs branch would be nice for testing ? pawel ?

> | > To set up the patched version of Balsa, go to
> | > Settings/Preferences/Mail Servers and specify the remote SMTP
> | > server mail is submitted to.  The syntax is hostname[:port].
> | 
> | there was a smtp port inputbox in the config dialog. why didn't you
> | use that?
> 
> Because libESMTP parses the host[:port] syntax. This is a fairly
> standard sort of thing anyway, e.g. Netscape and a handful of other
> programs use this syntax also.   I may add the ability to parse URI
> syntax in the future (if a URI syntax for SMTP is standardised).
> I felt that forcing the application to synthesise the correct syntax
> from a host name and a port number was a bit kludgy and was rather
> more work than necessary, so I removed the port number box.
> 
ok. 

> | > Since libESMTP defaults to port 587 rather than 25 you will
> | 
> | errrrr. why ?
> 
> Errrrr, see RFC 2476.  libESMTP aims to be compliant with the current
> set of mail standards which apply to mail *submission*.  To that end
> it will shortly comply with RFC 2821 and RFC 2822 rather than RFC 821,
> RFC 822, RFC 974 and portions of RFC 1123 which are now obsolete.
> 
i am yet to see a mta listening on port 587. setting the default to 
something that doesn't work in the default case is not very good.

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