![]() ![]() The quality of the fetchmail code is another, albeit serious, issue in itself. Fetchmail filled a hole that existed in email delivery at the time, but it was really a hole that should have never existed. This was also due to common SMTP MTAs not having good (or at least easy/obvious to configure) store-for-later-pickup functionality where an MTA could query for email destined for itself rather than be always-on connected to the internet waiting for another MTA to initiate delivery. Also missing at the time was any kind of serious connecting-client-as-MTA or MTA-to-MTA authentication (rather, relying on DNS and TCP!), which might have made async, receiver controlled MTA initiation more workable. Fetchmail made this work as best it could. ![]() That, at the time, email service providers bolted on entire domain delivery to a single mailbox, and then users of those services put multiple recipients behind that single mailbox. It's not fetchmail's fault that the envelope TO isn't available via pop3. Pop3 was never meant as a spool for MTA to MTA email transfers, but was instead meant for an MUA to access. Half of the half-bakedness is due to lack of MTA protocol support for MUA interactions on the receiving side. Fetchmail grew to be a mail transport swiss army knife and encompassed half baked functionality of a domain-wide MTA rather focusing on single user async email consolidation and collection for a logical single account, which is largely what this rant is about. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |