Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!chinacat!chip
From: chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Chip Rosenthal)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Trouble with Xenix rmail.
Message-ID: <1298@chinacat.Unicom.COM>
Date: 4 Jun 90 15:06:22 GMT
References: <54@aos.UUCP> <1990Jun3..23459@rdk386.uucp> <382@wells.UUCP>
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX
Lines: 26

In article <382@wells.UUCP> edw@wells.UUCP (Ed Wells) writes:
>The 'lmail' (your old rmail) is still used for local mailings.  As far
>as I know this hasn't been changed any unless their's an update that
>I'm not familiar with.  Maybe someone else out here can verify this also.

No...if you graft smail onto a XENIX system, you would want to use
/usr/lib/mail/execmail to do the local delivery.  (Which is going to be
hidden under another name.)  If you use Chip Salzenberg's deliver program
(I do), you don't even need to use SCO's execmail.  And you can just chuck
the distributed rmail.

There are a couple of approaches to the installation.  Chip Salzenberg
introduces an execmail replacement which just passes off the message to
smail.  I prefer to hack smail to understand the execmail flags, and thus
link /bin/smail to /usr/lib/mail/execmail.  The advantage of my approach
is that it removes one level of complexity (i.e. a fork/exec) from an
already convoluted system.  The disadvantage is that it has never been
tested with Micnet.

You can get the other Chip's patches from a comp.sources.misc archive,
and the other other Chip's patches by sending me email. :-)

-- 
Chip Rosenthal                            |  You aren't some icon carved out
chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM                  |  of soap, sent down here to clean
Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260  |  up my reputation.  -John Hiatt