Re: merge spost into post

David Levine wrote:

> We'd need a new mts value, in addition to the current "smtp"
> and "sendmail", in mts.conf to select it.  "spost", unless
> there's a better idea?

If all it does is pipe the message content in to sendmail's stdin then
how about "pipe". Or is it actually giving sendmail a file (the -remove
option makes me wonder).

>   -[no]push   to (not) fork/exit before exec'ing sendmail

This is the only one that looks even vaguely interesting if it means
that you can watch any errors coming from sendmail.

Oliver

_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers <at> nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

Re: merge spost into post

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 18:12:20 -0500, David Levine writes:
>I'm thinking about merging the spost sendmail interaction
>method into post. 

oh, yes please!

>We'd need a new mts value, in addition to the current "smtp"
>and "sendmail", in mts.conf to select it.

why not reuse "sendmail" with a profile/cmdline option
for post to select the pipe mode instead of batched smtp?

after all both scenarios do involve sendmail (or whatever mts.conf
says is sendmail:)

regards
az

--

-- 
Alexander Zangerl + GnuPG Keys 0x42BD645D or 0x5B586291 + http://snafu.priv.at/
> hence the AIX boxen of increasing power [...]
That phrasing reminded me of "Rodents of Unusual Size".
 -- Mike and Greg Andrews

_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers <at> nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

Re: merge spost into post

Oliver wrote:

> If all it does is pipe the message content in to sendmail's stdin then
> how about "pipe". Or is it actually giving sendmail a file (the -remove
> option makes me wonder).

It pipes to sendmail.  The file is temporary, used internally
to build the message.  Just before exec'ing to sendmail, spost
freopens stdin to it.

The tmp file is what gets refiled with Fcc, so -noremove doesn't
seem to add anything useful.  (-remove is the default.)

I like "pipe" better than "spost".

> >   -[no]push   to (not) fork/exit before exec'ing sendmail
> 
> This is the only one that looks even vaguely interesting if it means
> that you can watch any errors coming from sendmail.

The default is -nopush.  sendmail errors should show up
either way.  send(1) has -push and that seems the right
place to do this.  If a user calls post directly, they could
fork/exec the entire post process, just like send.

David

_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers <at> nongnu.org

Re: merge spost into post

az wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 18:12:20 -0500, David Levine writes:
> 
> >We'd need a new mts value, in addition to the current "smtp"
> >and "sendmail", in mts.conf to select it.
> 
> why not reuse "sendmail" with a profile/cmdline option
> for post to select the pipe mode instead of batched smtp?

Well, post doesn't read the profile.  If we used a command
line option, we'd have to feed it through send.  But I think
the biggest reason not to go this route is that we'd then
have an unsupported combination (network non-SMTP).  With
the third mts value, a user couldn't get there.

David

_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers <at> nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

Re: merge spost into post

Ken wrote:

>   Maybe "sendmail/smtp" and "sendmail/pipe"?  With just
>   "sendmail" meaning "sendmail/smtp"?  To me that's a
>   little clearer.

I like those.  I just had some quality airplane time and was
able to wrap up the addition of "pipe".  It's committed.  I
got your message after, I'll change the names this week.
spost is still there so nothing should be broken.

> - It occurs to me that some of these things should be
>   overrideable via mh_profile (like the path to sendmail).
>   Just saying 

And an -mts command line option would help with the
migration away from spost, which could then just exec "post
-mts sendmail/pipe".

> - It should be made clear in the man pages that in the
>   "pipe" or "sendmail/pipe" case that it's impossible to
>   set the envelope-from address.

Is what's already in the send(1) man page sufficient, starting
with "When using SMTP for mail submission?"

> - Are we going to have some notification at runtime for
>   those people who put "spost" in their postproc a couple
>   of decades ago for some long-forgotten reason?