Re: Balsa + libESMTP patch

[Brian Stafford <brian stafford uklinux net>]

On Wed,  2 May 16:21 Carlos Morgado wrote:

| this is about onld stmp code vs. libesmtp anyway, not libesmtp vs.
| local mta so this is moot. 

Well libESMTP is definitely better than the existing client.
Given that a reliable SMTP client is available for posting mail,
why does one need sendmail to do it instead?
 
| > workstation).  Inflexible for many reasons derived from the fact
| that
| > very fine grained control over protocol options and recipient
| options
| > and status etc is possible at the protocol level compared to
| sendmail's
| > command line.
| > 
| that's why there is a sendmail.cf.

Eh?  How does sendmail.cf allow the app to retrieve per-recipient
status?  To set, e.g. DSN options per recipient?

| 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.

| > Or are you saying libESMTP doesn't work or is buggy?  If so I'd like
| 
| no. i'm saying balsa shouldn't make such a change overnight. i'm
| saying there 
| should be a 1.1 release with default --with-libesmtp=yes and then on
| the next 
| libmutt review phase out the old code. 
| i'm saying maybe there should be a libesmtp branch. pawel ?
| 
| > the bug reports, please.  A significant amount of effort has gone
| > into the developemnt of libESMTP over the last 5 months or so.  If
| > there are problems with the library, I really need to know about it.
| > 
| haven't tried it yet. just aplied the patch over current balsa and ran
| configure

I feel it would be a *lot* more constructive if you reserved criticism
until *after* you'd actually tried out the patch.

Regards,
Brian Stafford