Xref: utzoo comp.mail.misc:4468 comp.mail.uucp:5619 comp.unix.xenix.sco:1018
Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!eci386!woods
From: woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,comp.mail.uucp,comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: Smail 2.5 and SCO Unix 3.2.2
Message-ID: <1990Dec9.213425.28580@eci386.uucp>
Date: 9 Dec 90 21:34:25 GMT
References: <1CE00001.e5c4ky@tbomb.ice.com>
Reply-To: woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods)
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc.
Lines: 28

In article <1CE00001.e5c4ky@tbomb.ice.com> time@tbomb.ice.com writes:
> In article <1990Dec04.130145.11290@usaos.uucp>, calhoun@usaos.uucp (Warren D. Calhoun) writes:
> > Or, just go with smail3.  It has numerous advantages over smail2.5 (it's a
> > completely different animal), and compiles on SCO Unix 3.2.[012] MUCH easier
> > than mmdf.  Combine this with something like ELM 2.3 and you have a powerful
> > setup.
>
> I agree. My mail feed just recently switched to smail3 and it appears
> to work *much* better than sendmail!

I'm not sure if this is relevant to the above, but I'd strongly
suggest that sendmail, mmdf, and smail-3 are all far too complex for
anyone not running in an SMTP environment.  Smail-2.5, and perhaps
lmail-2.6 for local delivery, is more than sufficient as an MTA for
UUCP-only sites.

On the other hand, I will not dispute that smail-3 is superior to
sendmail (and perhaps mmdf).

As for MUA's, my preference is MUSH.  Though the user-interface of ELM
is quite nice, the rest of it is a pain-in-the-butt (IMHO).  The MUSH
user-interface can do near anything ELM can, is "programmable", and
can operate in three fundamental modes (line, curses, suntools).
-- 
							Greg A. Woods
woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP		ECI and UniForum Canada
+1-416-443-1734 [h]  +1-416-595-5425 [w]    VE3TCP	Toronto, Ontario CANADA
Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible-ORWELL