smtp vs. http - comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:45:08 GMT, John Bailo wrote: > For sending data, > > sendmail is the best option. > > smtp fulfills many needs > > sendmail is simple, secure, transactional .... and easily forged. Oh, and it's also 7-bit ASCII where there rest of the world have been using 8 bits in their bytes for a while now if it wasn't for some dozy fucks running ancient Unix servers that couldn't handle it. -- People in the killfile (and whose posts I won't read) as of 12/10/2003 11:42:41 PM: Peter Kohlmann, T.Max Devlin.

Milo T. sighed and said: > the rest of the world have been using > 8 bits in their bytes for a while now if it wasn't for some dozy fucks > running ancient Unix servers that couldn't handle it. zzZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZ zzzzz zzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz zzz ZZZZZZ zzzzz...... -- Ian He knows his onions.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:45:08 GMT, John Bailo wrote: > For sending data, > > sendmail is the best option. > > smtp fulfills many needs > > sendmail is simple, secure, transactional Sendmail is anything *but* transactional. You can't send 5 messages to different locations, and, finding out the third one didn't get through, roll back the other 4. -- FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386 8:30AM up 20 days, 10:41, 1 user, load averages: 0.04, 0.02, 0.00

General Protection Fault wrote: > On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:45:08 GMT, John Bailo wrote: > >>For sending data, >> >>sendmail is the best option. >> >>smtp fulfills many needs >> >>sendmail is simple, secure, transactional > > > Sendmail is anything *but* transactional. You can't send 5 messages to > different locations, and, finding out the third one didn't get through, > roll back the other 4. > > Why not?

John Bailo wrote: > General Protection Fault wrote: >> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:45:08 GMT, John Bailo wrote: >> >>>For sending data, >>> >>>sendmail is the best option. >>> >>>smtp fulfills many needs >>> >>>sendmail is simple, secure, transactional >> >> >> Sendmail is anything *but* transactional. You can't send 5 messages to >> different locations, and, finding out the third one didn't get through, >> roll back the other 4. >> >> > > Why not? Are you trying a match for dumbest question? Yours would rank quite high, that's for sure -- I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:36:56 GMT, John Bailo wrote: > General Protection Fault wrote: >> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:45:08 GMT, John Bailo wrote: >> >>>For sending data, >>> >>>sendmail is the best option. >>> >>>smtp fulfills many needs >>> >>>sendmail is simple, secure, transactional >> >> >> Sendmail is anything *but* transactional. You can't send 5 messages to >> different locations, and, finding out the third one didn't get through, >> roll back the other 4. >> >> > > Why not? Gee, I dunno, maybe because SMTP DOESN'T SUPPORT IT. -- FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386 9:05AM up 20 days, 11:16, 1 user, load averages: 0.10, 0.05, 0.01

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:06:49 GMT, John Bailo wrote: > Trina Trollman wrote: > >> Are you trying a match for dumbest question? Yours would rank quite high, >> that's for sure > > Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's dumb. Peter Kohlmann has forgotten more Computer Science than you'll ever know. -- FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386 9:10AM up 20 days, 11:21, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00

General Protection Fault wrote: > On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:06:49 GMT, John Bailo wrote: > >>Trina Trollman wrote: >> >> >>>Are you trying a match for dumbest question? Yours would rank quite high, >>>that's for sure >> >>Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's dumb. > > > Peter Kohlmann has forgotten more Computer Science than you'll ever know. > > If you want to kiss Trina Trollman's ass -- I'm sure she'll let you.

Hello John Bailo , You wrote , " Just because you don't understand it , doesn't mean it's dumb. I agree , If it was an easy question , Trina Trollman would've quickly answered it . Is this the answer ? : It's not always possible to cancel the message .