Re: smtp crap

[chad]

On Oct 10, 2011, at 9:20 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
> So absent any data showing the new method would (or at least _might_)
> improve things, isn't this change in behavior kind of dubious...?


In one or two of the previous conversations on this topic, we talked
about the cases where it does improve things: it is common for a
machine to have a local sendmail (-doppelgänger) that silently eats
mail.

I have personally seen (several years ago, at MIT) a large number of
report-emacs-bug messages that ended up stranded on such a machine,
and the user had no reasonable way of knowing that the message had not
been sent (as far as they could tell, it *had* been sent).  I have no
idea how common this sort of configuration is today, but when we
discussed it before, it seemed that at least 2 or 3 common, popular
GNU/Linux distributions were likely to fall into this or similar
problem configurations.

I hope that helps,
*Chad