Re: [PATCH] Reviving qmail with X-Message-SMTP-Method in Gnus

[Mohsen BANAN]

Andrew Cohen <acohen@ust.hk> writes:
>>>>>> "EZ" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
>     EZ> Andrew, Lars: any objections to adding this to message.el?
>
> Err, yes I object (sort of)! message.el knows how to handle 4 MTAs:
> sendmail, qmail, mh, and mailclient.  The header X-Message-SMTP-Method
> can be used to override the default MTA but for some reason only allows
> sendmail (or the use of smtp directly).  The suggested patch would also
> allow qmail. But the better way to handle this is to allow any of the
> MTAs to be used. I suggest the following patch instead which will do
> this (and in the unlikely event that another MTA is added to message.el
> it would not require any further modification to handle the new MTA). Unless
> there is some objection I'll push this instead.

Both patches will reactive qmail -- which is what
I want. So, as far as I am concerned, either is
good.

But, Andrew I want you to consider this.

Perhaps Lars did it on purpose. Perhaps he
included sendmail and excluded qmail, mh, and
mailclient on purpose believing that those other MTAs
are no longer in use. Expecting people to complain
if that was not the case.

I am actually using qmail. So, there is a use
case for qmail. I am saying that qmail is not
obsolete. I have added oauth2 support for qmail
and I use qmail to access gmail ...

But is anybody actually using mh or mailclient?
What we do know is that nobody has complained
about them not being supported for a while.
So perhaps nobody is actually using mh ...

In other words, perhaps it is the right thing for
emacs to move towards considering mh as on its way
to be obsoleted.

In any case, in addition to the code,
documentation also needs to be update. I mentioned
that in my submission.

Again, from may perspective your patch is equally fine.

Had you considered that planned obsolescence
strategy in your patch?

Thanks and regards,

...Mohsen