Re: [Nmh-workers] Local submission queues

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

> On Feb 21, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Ken Hornstein <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> So it occurs to me you could MOSTLY do this right now without any changes
> to nmh.
> 
> [...]
> 
> So, you could have your own postproc check the exit value of the 'real'
> post(8) and if it fails, grab the outgoing message and hide in your
> queue directory.  You'd also have it check for any messages in the queue
> directory and try submitting those at the same time.  You don't need to
> save any SMTP envelope metadata, because post(8) gets that out of the
> message headers today.

I don't like the exception-based process model you describe.  Making submission 
queueing the default - even for the single message case - greatly simplifies 
the interface.

And having a single hook for this opens up a lot of flexibility for things I 
can't even imagine right now, but know I will want to as the corporate monsters 
and governments continue to restrict whom I am allowed to talk to, and how.  
(Okay, maybe that's a bit hyperbolic.  Or not ...)

--lyndon