|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Subject: Re: SMTP vs Postfix's sendmail
From: Wietse Venema (wietse
porcupine.org)Date: Thu Mar 30 2000 - 08:09:34 CST
- Next message: Wietse Venema: "Re: [2] how to bind smtp client to specific address?"
- Previous message: Chris Horry: "Re: Header parsing at the server level"
- In reply to: Matthias Andree: "Re: SMTP vs Postfix's sendmail"
- Next in thread: Matthias Andree: "Re: SMTP vs Postfix's sendmail"
- Reply: Wietse Venema: "Re: SMTP vs Postfix's sendmail"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Matthias Andree:
> wietse
porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) writes:
>
> > A couple weeka ago I suggested a short-cut (direct queue injection)
> > but that would be acceptable only in a well-controlled environment.
> > This code hasn't been written yet.
>
> Would that code be qmail-qmqp (qmail quick mail queueing protocol)
> compatible or there be a daemon that interfaces? Just considering since
> that might enable Postfix users to use EZMLM.
HA HA HA HA HA HA *COUGH* (please call a doctor, quick!).
Gargle. *Spit*. Thanks, that feels much better.
Is this the "protocol" that talks "raw qmail queue file format"?
If so, then my answer is no. On the other hands, proposals for a
reasonable protocol or API will be considered.
Direct injection makes sense only if one has to submit MANY messages
to ONE recipient.
Plain old maildrop/pickup is more than sufficient for ONE message
to MANY recipients.
Wietse
- Next message: Wietse Venema: "Re: [2] how to bind smtp client to specific address?"
- Previous message: Chris Horry: "Re: Header parsing at the server level"
- In reply to: Matthias Andree: "Re: SMTP vs Postfix's sendmail"
- Next in thread: Matthias Andree: "Re: SMTP vs Postfix's sendmail"
- Reply: Wietse Venema: "Re: SMTP vs Postfix's sendmail"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]