Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mcvax!mhres!jv
From: jv@mhres.mh.nl (Johan Vromans)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,comp.sources.wanted,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Smail or Elm??
Message-ID: <1286@mhres.mh.nl>
Date: Mon, 7-Sep-87 05:57:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhres.1286
Posted: Mon Sep  7 05:57:36 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 8-Sep-87 01:50:29 EDT
References: <1392@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <890@bakerst.UUCP> <212@ho7cad.ATT.COM> <2908@psuvax1.psu.edu>
Followup-To: comp.mail.misc
Organization: Multihouse N.V., The Netherlands
Lines: 24
Summary: two different things
Xref: mnetor comp.mail.misc:518 comp.sources.wanted:2153 comp.unix.questions:3925

In article <2908@psuvax1.psu.edu> jte@psuvax1.psu.edu (Jon Eckhardt) writes:
>.....  I was going to pick between
>smail or ELM and had settled on SMAIL because it looks very simple but
>now I hear that ELM has a smart user-interface.  ....

You are talking about two different things.

Smail is a mail router, which finds out (more or less) how and where to
transport mail to. It calls upon local and remote services (binmail and
uux) for the actual delivery. Smail is not intended to be used directly.

Elm is a mail user interface. It is very friendly, and has a number of
features built-in which are also handled by the mail router & delivery
services. 

So you can (should?) run both - elm as a user interface, and smail as the
router. You can disable most of elm's "own" handling of uucp paths, routes
and such and leave those to smail.


-- 
Johan Vromans                              | jv@mh.nl via European backbone
Multihouse N.V., Gouda, the Netherlands    | uucp: ..{?????!}mcvax!mh.nl!jv
"It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness"