Xref: utzoo unix-pc.general:922 comp.sys.att:3625 Path: utzoo!lsuc!ncrcan!ziebmef!cks From: cks@ziebmef.uucp (Chris Siebenmann) Newsgroups: unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att Subject: Re: Mailer questions and a Curses bug (was: mailx for 3b1 ver 3.0) Message-ID: <1988Jun26.132407.29690@ziebmef.uucp> Date: 26 Jun 88 17:24:04 GMT References: <8014@alice.UUCP> Reply-To: cks@ziebmef.UUCP (Chris Siebenmann) Organization: Ziebmef Public Access BBS/Unix Lines: 20 In article <8014@alice.UUCP> wilber@alice.UUCP writes: ... >Right now I'm still using ye olde crufty standard-issue-out-of-the-box mail, >but I read and write mail with Emac's rmail. I would like to know what >advantages, if any, there are to using one of mailx, smail, mush, etc., for >someone who uses Emacs. For someone already using Emac's rmail, mailx and mush are unnecessary, but smail is still useful. Mailx, mush, and Emac's rmail are mail user agents (things people use to deal with mail), while smail is a mail delivery agent (something programs use to route and deliver mail). The big things you get by running smail is the ability to handle '@'-style addresses sensibly and generate mail messages that conform to the applicable standards (RFC 822?). -- You're a prisoner of the dark sky/The propeller blades are still And the evil eye of the hurricane's/Coming in for the kill Chris Siebenmann uunet!utgpu!{ontmoh!moore,ncrcan}!ziebmef!cks cks@ziebmef.UUCP or .....!utgpu!{,ontmoh!,ncrcan!brambo!}cks