On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 02:35:23AM +0200, Vadim Vygonets wrote:
| Quoth Matthew Byng-Maddick on Wed, Jan 02, 2002:
| > On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 09:45:56AM -0500, Derek Broughton wrote:
| > > Right. Similarly fetchmail prefers to deliver to port 25 than to
| > > sendmail. I wonder if it's an assumption that the SMTP server is a
| > > standalone daemon and therefore has no startup overhead? Of course, not
| > > necessarily a valid assumption.
|
| Hmm.
|
| : narn:~%4; size /SBIN/exim
| text data bss dec hex
| 415874 14300 7040 437214 6abde /SBIN/exim
|
| I'd say that loading 14K of data[0] off the disk doesn't take
| much more time than making DNS lookups and whatnot.
Sounds good to me.
| > Fetchmail is a pile of crap, because it often loses mail, due to this. It
| > ignores any error return codes in delivering the message, but happily
| > deletes it from the pop/imap server anyway.
|
| Agreed, and I've seen it happen. Mail should NEVER be lost.
| Unless it's an undeliverable bounce message, or is explicitly
| blackholed, that is. What I mean is: mail from a real human to a
| real human should NEVER be lost.
Right.
| I heard that getmail is a good program that does things right.
Or tell fetchmail to pipe to exim, the way it ought to.
| > This is a good reason for NOT using SMTP delivery, IMO.
|
| Or implementing it correctly, including some sort of queue.
This sounds like the easiest way is to embed exim inside of Outlook
<grin>. I don't think you'll call that reasonable :-).
-D
--
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our
sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
I John 1:9
