Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.mh
Subject: Re: Problems with whatnow/send
Message-ID: <1991Jan29.124521.22710@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 29 Jan 91 12:45:21 GMT
References: <5740009@hpscdc.scd.hp.com> <1991Jan26.140602.5459@mp.cs.niu.edu> <PINKAS.91Jan28172136@st860.intel.com>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Lines: 32

In article <PINKAS.91Jan28172136@st860.intel.com> pinkas@st860.intel.com (Israel Pinkas) writes:
>In article <1991Jan26.140602.5459@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>> >  Q. What exactly are the benefits of using SMTP with mh?
>
>Here are some reasons to set MH up to deliver via SMTP rather than
>sendmail:
>
>1. You don't have sendmail set up.  SVR4 is a good example of such an

 Well, it would be pretty dumb to configure MH to use 'sendmail' on a
system that doesn't have sendmail.

>2. You run mail clusters.  All the mail delivery is done on the file
>(...)
>.. several other reasons deleted.

 Of course there may be reasons related to the local setup which would
make you decide to use SMTP with MH.  I certainly consider it a benefit of
MH that it supports this.

 The MH documentation clearly says that SMTP is the preferred method with
sendmail.  Why is it preferred?  Saying it is preferred implies that where
both a direct pipe and SMTP are available choices, there are advantages
to SMTP.  So far the responses have not suggested any such advantages.  I
am inclined to conclude that this was merely the personal preference of
the person who wrote the documentation.

-- 
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert@cs.niu.edu>
  Northern Illinois Univ.
  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   +1-815-753-6940