On Wednesday 28 September 2005 14:23, Steve Lamb wrote:
(Apologies if this is getting too OT!)
> > The "desktop" of a typical Debian user will probably involve
> > functions that require an MTA of some kind.
>
> Mine certainly doesn't and I don't think I that far beyond the
> pale.
So you don't run logcheck and don't want output from cron or at jobs? I
think that's unusual among Debian users.
> Why should I when the program has to handle failure anyway? The
> argument always seems to be "The MTA can handle failures." OK, and
> when the MTA fails what, the program sending mail is just supposed to
> route it to /dev/null?
You could make that argument about syslogd or any other service!
> Even mutt, the current MUA de jour of the
> die-hard unixeistas has it's own primative queuing in place in case of
> MTA failure.
Good point, but that mail is still going to sit there *until* the MTA
starts working again. I thought you were arguing against the necessity
of having one there at all?
> That's exactly what I said. Those who prefer Exim can still
> install it with the nominal expense of having to do a quick
> apt-get|aptitude. This is different in how it is now where
> apt-get|aptitude automatically install it. Hence... nominal expense.
> :)
Sorry, I misread it the first time.
