[arch-dev-public] msmtp, ssmtp, nbsmtp - 3 smpt forwarder in extra
roman.kyrylych at gmail.com
Thu Nov 29 07:14:12 EST 2007
2007/11/29, Tobias Kieslich <tobias at justdreams.de>:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Jason Chu wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 03:35:01PM -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> > > On Nov 28, 2007 3:30 PM, Simo Leone <simo at archlinux.org> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 05:15:56PM -0800, Tobias Kieslich wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > it's been talked about it a bit. Jason said he is using ssmtp and he
> > > > > is willing to maintain it in extra. I was using msmtp but with mutt's
> > > > > new build in smtp (for those who havn't heard it b4, yes you heard
> > > > > right: mutt build in and smtp in one sentence) I don't use msmtp
> > > > > anymore. I don't say msmtp is a bad program. I just think we should ship
> > > > > maybe only one forwarder in extra and I'm fine with ssmtp. Anyone using
> > > > > nbsmtp at all?
> > > > >
> > > > Hmmm you know I was wondering why this thread was out of order in my
> > > > mail reader... then I realized you sent it tomorrow.
> > >
> > > Back on topic, thanks.
> > >
> > > I say we keep msmtp and ssmtp, and remove nbsmtp - any problems with
> > > that? i will gladly maintain msmtp if no one wants it.
> > Whoops... now I feel dumb... I just realized that I use msmtp and not
> > ssmtp.
> > At this point I don't really care what happens with ssmtp.
> So I vote for getting rid of ssmtp and nbsmtp. Objections?
> Oh and I can keep maintaining it. It was never really a hassle...
+1 for keeping only msmtp.
Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
More information about the arch-dev-public