Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior?

[Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com>]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> I see much discussion, but few solutions.
>
> I see Ian's part of the discussion as just saying "we should always use
> mail-interactive and set sendmail's arguments to queuing".  Sounds like
> a good solution to me.

I missed the conclusion, sorry.  Does all MTAs support that option?
Doesn't this require that the system is running a queue poll every now
and then?  It isn't uncommon to see workstations that doesn't run
sendmail -q or the equivalent (Windows comes to mind, not that this
fact alone should influence us).  I'm worried that the change will
require environmental behaviour that emacs didn't require before, thus
potentially introducing new breakage.

> Your message seems to be about something else, but it also leads to the
> need to run sendmail not-in-the-background, so it goes in the
> same direction, i.e.: run sendmail in the foreground (telling it to queue
> the message) and if there's an error analyse it and report it clearly to
> the user (typically tellnig it that the delivery failed or that he should
> use smtpmail.el).

Yes.  The approaches are not mutually exclusive, and in fact probably
can be combined with some benefits.