From: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 10:11:42 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] send-email: allow sendmail binary to be used instead of SMTP
Message-ID: <20060515101142.GD6855@localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <7vmzdjtya4.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> writes:
> 
> > I believe this is what Martin wanted.  I think it's a good idea since
> > sendmail binaries tend to be more flexible, but I'm ok with it either
> > way.
> 
> I am not opposed to have an option to run a local submission
> agent binary (I said I like that if(){}else{} there, didn't I?).
> The ability to do so is a good thing.  I am not however sure
> about changing the default when no option is specified on the
> command line.

By "I believe this is what Martin wanted", I meant changing the default to
sendmail: <46a038f90604271804j195d62f3x93ae816e809f4ffd@mail.gmail.com>

	> Oh, it should just work with sendmail if it's there and we don't
	> provide --smtp-server ;-)

> >> > +	if ($smtp_server =~ m#^/#) {
> >> 
> >> I like this if(){}else{} here, but have a feeling that the
> >> logging part should be placed outside it to be shared.
> >
> > Cleaned that up a bit, patch coming.  Also removed the Port: printout
> > completely, as it's rather redundant (see below).
> >
> >> While we are at it, we might want to enhance $smtp_server parsing
> >> to take host:port notation so that people can use message
> >> submission port 587/tcp (RFC 4409) instead.
> >
> > This already works, IO::Socket::INET (behind Net::SMTP) takes care of
> > it :)
> 
> Thanks.  Maybe the next option would be delivery to a file (or
> even SMTP batch)? ;-)

Sure :)  Authentication and SSL may be worth looking into, though.  I'm
pretty content these days with my autossh tunnel to my mail server,
though.

-- 
Eric Wong