From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Simon Josefsson Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior? Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:38:45 +0100 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <877jzn2lk8.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1074884590 18866 80.91.224.253 (23 Jan 2004 19:03:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:03:10 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 23 20:03:06 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ak6a9-0003iT-00 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:03:05 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ak6a8-0006Ux-00 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:03:05 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Ak6Zw-0002BX-9W for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:02:52 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1Ak6Zh-0002Ap-Em for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:02:37 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1Ak6ZB-0001zX-8l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:02:36 -0500 Original-Received: from [80.91.224.249] (helo=main.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Ak6Z8-0001z3-1f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:02:02 -0500 Original-Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ak6Dn-0000Ho-00 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:39:59 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from sea.gmane.org ([80.91.224.252]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ak6D9-0000BL-00 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:39:19 +0100 Original-Received: from news by sea.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ak6D0-0001MP-00 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:39:10 +0100 Original-Lines: 19 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ee4d14vU0WfuYqTif+u87T4OZH0= X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:19462 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:19462 Richard Stallman writes: > I suspect that if the MTA is trying to deliver the message to its > final destination, then it may hang regardless of what MTA is used. > > I would expect people to design an MTAs not to wait very long > in the process that you created to send the mail. If sendmail > does this badly, does that mean they all do? I guess not. But how do MTAs implement this, if they don't wait in the foreground? Simply storing the e-mail in /var/spool/mqueue and hope that the system is polling the queue every hour or so might not be reliable. This approach also has the disadvantage that any errors that CAN be detected (and reported to the user) immediately, probably won't be, since /usr/lib/sendmail will always just push the message on the queue, without doing any error checking or simple delivery attempts. Just some thoughts.