On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:10:37AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > Matthew Garrett wrote: > >Local delivery of mail is a poor solution, since it provides no > >indication of priority difference between "You've got spam" and "Your > >hard drive is failing". > > That's a solvable problem within the context of email, whereas starting > from scratch and re-inventing delivery to arbitrary user-selectable > endpoints is somewhat insane. I'm sure the anti-spam companies would be delighted to hear it. Yes, it's a solvable problem - but you're conflating two things, important system updates and personal email. I think trying to present these two quite different things in the same way is a bad idea. > >If there's nobody to present it to, it can be > >queued and presented at login - if the user is running on their system > >but doesn't have the desktop infrastructure running, then by definition > >they're already outside the standard desktop usecase. > > Does that mean their system should die with no attempt at notification? > Or that desktop administration should be confusingly different than > standard systems? I'm reasonably sure that I didn't suggest that, no. > >I'm not arguing about the utility of an MTA for various situations. I'm > >arguing that for one specific and very common situation, using an MTA to > >deliver system alerts is a poor way of handling it. We should fix that. > > No, you should fix it so mail delivery is useful. And then have to modify every single MUA so it automatically flags high-priority system information. I'm not convinced getting that into gmail is going to happen. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
