Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!uwvax!umn-d-ub!rhealey
From: rhealey@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Rob Healey)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: Problems with Elm 2.1 on V/386
Message-ID: <632@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU>
Date: 21 Dec 88 20:37:48 GMT
References: <170@wa3wbu.UUCP> <1658@nud.UUCP> <173@wa3wbu.UUCP>
Reply-To: rhealey@ub.d.umn.edu.UUCP (Rob Healey)
Organization: University of Minnesota, Duluth
Lines: 14

In article <173@wa3wbu.UUCP> john@wa3wbu.UUCP (John Gayman) writes:
>In article <1658@nud.UUCP>, df@nud.UUCP (Dale Farnsworth) writes:
>> John Gayman (john@wa3wbu.UUCP) writes of an incompatibility between
>> elm2.1 and smail2.5 on his SVR3 system.  Elm passes a -s option to
>> /bin/rmail and rmail complains it is illegal.
>> 

	Sendmail has it's flags defined in sysdefs.h, maybe elm2.2
	and beyond should allow the parameters to rmail/mailx/smail/sendmail
	to be set in sysdefs.h so one doesn't have to hack up the .c files.

			-Rob Healey

			rhealey@ub.d.umn.edu