Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!princeton!udel!galvin From: galvin@udel.EDU (James M Galvin) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: MH (was Re: X.400 ean mail system) Message-ID: <482@louie.udel.EDU> Date: Fri, 4-Sep-87 12:13:28 EDT Article-I.D.: louie.482 Posted: Fri Sep 4 12:13:28 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Sep-87 18:15:52 EDT References: <186@bernina.UUCP> <1518@fmsrl7.UUCP> <21683@lll-tis.arpa> <1866@fmsrl7.UUCP> Reply-To: galvin@udel.EDU (James M Galvin) Organization: University of Delaware Lines: 29 Keywords: MH (Rand Mail Handler), sendmail, Summary: MH and MMDF is a good thing In article <1866@fmsrl7.UUCP> wayne@fmsrl7.UUCP (/\/\ichael R. \/\/ayne) writes: >In article <21683@lll-tis.arpa> kehres@lll-tis.arpa (Tim Kehres) writes: >>In article <1518@fmsrl7.UUCP> wayne@fmsrl7.UUCP(/\/\ichael R. \/\/ayne) writes: >>> >>> MH is a fabulous mail handling system if you get lots of mail. I really must agree. The flexibility and tailorability possible is the single most appreciated element of MH to me. >>I have heard that it also works quite well with mmdf. Anyone running this >>wish to comment??? > > The MH installation guide suggests the following: > > sendmail - best > mmdf - OK > standalone (ie MH as a transport layer) - not recommneded I have never quite understood this. I run MMDF at our site, and have used MH since version 5 (2 1/2 years or so ago). I think that originally the developer/maintainer of MH was particularly familiar with MMDF and that is where that comment came from. The interactions with MMDF's submit process are not exactly obvious. Actually, if you let MMDF post mail via SMTP (even on the local host) I don't think it matters much what your transport system is. This is all just my opinion, of course. Jim -- James M Galvin