From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tim Cross Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Changing the default for `send-mail-function' Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:25:33 +1000 Message-ID: References: <87vcvmtc7z.fsf@mid.gehheimdienst.de> <87liwgg3vv.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87y60elo83.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <4E131B9C.4020806@swipnet.se> <87liwc1k08.fsf@gmail.com> <34F70A20-5300-4F2C-A271-C928F67F27EF@mit.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1310009157 11088 80.91.229.12 (7 Jul 2011 03:25:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 03:25:57 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 07 05:25:53 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QefDt-0000R3-Kl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 05:25:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39267 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QefDs-0001N7-Fz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 23:25:52 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:57088) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QefDd-0001Mz-UK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 23:25:39 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QefDa-00046k-Hq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 23:25:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-iw0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]:53466) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QefDa-00046e-CH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 23:25:34 -0400 Original-Received: by iwn8 with SMTP id 8so570197iwn.0 for ; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 20:25:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=k8eTtpG41jtAR7MnRe5d+1/RCOl+dwWfZv8v1vXq3B0=; b=aVyvEI4puWuusxkLasct+uxniTJ/p6E+GY0w44ft1qsDs0NtpNw6WFCI4LxVzXQyrq PF12Ss/thyU5VrrhKnJwgbU+7BH+/pWExSa5bspl8ncwHvqhA0+rTQ1NNeDaSS+IAHjI vgZNGCa1zh4ImWVvcuL6KCEXLHSl7C7Q0mx0M= Original-Received: by 10.231.67.145 with SMTP id r17mr270360ibi.176.1310009133274; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 20:25:33 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.231.15.3 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 20:25:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.214.169 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:141717 Archived-At: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen w= rote: > Tim Cross writes: > >> The whole question still seems to come down to two opposing opinions - >> on one side, we have those who believe that the MAJORITY of local MTA >> configurations are broken and therefore, we should move to a default >> of smtpmail, plus those who feel this is the more modern approach >> adopted by most other mail clients and one that tends to fit better >> with a model of computing that focuses on mobility and connectivity >> from multiple networks (with different firewalls, smtp servers and >> authentication requirements etc) =A0versus an alternative perspective >> who question this assumption and who are concerned that many people >> who currently don't have to worry about issues associated with >> configuring email will now be forced to and in some cases, this could >> be difficult as such information may not be readily available - at the >> very least, it is a change which could force people to do additional >> tasks requiring additional information which they previously did not >> have to do. > > Even if that may be the longest sentence I've read outside of Kant, and > though the verb didn't end the paragraph, I think that's a very cogent > summary of the issues. > Very generous and I apologise for the length/grammar. I'm posting from gmail and due to the poor interface, tend not to edit as much as I should. Not an excuse, just a statement of my laziness. >> At any rate, without some facts, I doubt this can be resolved. We >> really need to know some numbers. > > I just have one data point -- I installed Ubuntu, and sending mail from > Emacs didn't work. > > You'd think that would be pretty typical. =A0But perhaps I pushed the > wrong button somewhere? =A0I can't remember doing so, but somebody (else) > should just try to install a default Ubuntu on a machine and see what > happens and report back. I have installed Ubuntu on one fresh system and upgraded an old system in the last 12 months. The only issue I had was Ubuntu installed postfix rather than exim. As part of the installation, I was asked a couple of very simple questions and mail worked fine. However, I recently helped someone install ubuntu (11.04) and did notice that no local MTA was installed at all. I suspect a lot depends on the set of packages you install. It isn't at all intuitive either. For example, the reason that one ubuntu install I did got a local MTA and the other didn't seems to be down to the fact I have a RAID config and an MTA is a recommended package for mdadm while the other system had no RAID and there is no MTA listed in the ubuntu-desktop package (at least, not at the top level - possibly packages in that meta-package do require/recommend an MTA). Of course, this is just one distribution out of many. I think this is partially why this is such a difficult issue to sort out. This also means that we can see reports from people installing the same distribution with varying outcomes. Some get a local MTA and some do not. It has been suggested that even if they do get an MTA, it will be misconfigured. This certainly hasn't been my experience. When an MTA has been installed, the configuration has been very straight-forward - no more difficult than setting up an individual mail client. Then again, I don't run emacs on a laptop, so I don't need authenticated SMTP support. My local MTA can use my ISPs server as a smarthost and all is fine. > >> I have not observed an increase in bugs relating to mail configuration >> or requests for help to configure mail or frustration regarding the >> current default. > > Perhaps they weren't able to report the bug? =A0:-) > With only a little irony and a fair slice of humor, I can only smile and no= d! I would like to say that despite the lack of any clear progress and the likely high level of frustration that many may be feeling over this question, I do think you need to be commended for both the work you have done to improve smtpmail and showing the courage to take on the frequently touchy topic of changing default settings. It is important that such questions are raised from time to time to ensure emacs progresses and I think such discussions/debates are valuable and worthwhile. Tim