Great Circle Associates Majordomo-Users
(July 1998)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: MTA's (was: VERY large mailing lists.)
From: Dave Sill <de5 @ sws5 . ctd . ornl . gov>
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, Tenn., USA
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 98 16:28:56 EST
To: majordomo-users @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <Pine.BSI.3.95.980715130707.3569G-100000@queernet.queernet.org>
References: <19980715200246.26469.qmail@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov><Pine.BSI.3.95.980715130707.3569G-100000@queernet.queernet.org>

"Roger B.A. Klorese" <rogerk@QueerNet.ORG>
>On Wed, 15 Jul 1998, Dave Sill wrote:
>> The situation we were discussing was "sender running qmail, recipient
>> running sendmail vs. recipient running a modular MTA". If you want to
>> change the rules, please do so before stating a conclusion based on
>> the new rules.
>
>The ENTIRE Discussion as about the rudeness of sender-side qmail.

Right, but I pointed out a few rounds back that one of the reasons
it's considered rude (by some) is because the receivers are running
monolithic MTA's, and that, if they were running modular MTA's, they'd
be better able to handle qmail senders.

-Dave


Follow-Ups:
References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: MTA's (was: VERY large mailing lists.)
From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" <rogerk@QueerNet.ORG>
Next: Re: MTA's (was: VERY large mailing lists.)
From: Rich Pieri <rich.pieri@prescienttech.com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: MTA's (was: VERY large mailing lists.)
From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" <rogerk@QueerNet.ORG>
Next: Re: MTA's (was: VERY large mailing lists.)
From: Rich Pieri <rich.pieri@prescienttech.com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com