From: Chris Nehren <c.nehren/
begi...@shadowcat.co.uk>
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 00:05:56 +0200 , Jenda Krynicky wrote:
> > From: Chris Nehren <c.nehren/
begi...@shadowcat.co.uk>
> > > On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 17:38:57 +0000 , Thomas Dean wrote:
> > > > Hi there,
> > > >
> > > > I have succeeded in sending mail to my SMTP server with Mail::Sender
> > > > without SSL. But now I'm wondering how to do that with SSL, for example,
> > > > GMail. After reading the doc, I set TLS_required to 1 when I'm calling
> > > > Mail::Sender->new, but nohing works. I tried to debug the program but
> > > > found nothing different whether I turn TLS_required on or not.
> > >
> > > You should look at Email::Sender::SMTP::TLS instead--it's the de facto,
> > > mature way of sending email through TLS SMTP servers with perl, and is
> > > actively supported. Mail::Sender reinvents a lot of wheels, poorly, as
> > > you are finding.
> >
> > It reinvented a lot of wheels that were not available at the time it
> > was written. The fact that there is a specific module now doesn't
> > mean it had been available or working under the target operating
> > systems always.
>
> Email::Sender is still the right tool to use, and actually works. It
> probably sends more mail in a day than you ever will*.
Having been the basis of the Hotmail service Mail::Sender sent more
mail you ever will. By order of several magnitudes. Not sure what
they use now, but they had been using Mail::Sender for several years
as could have be seen in the mail headers. Several other similar
services used or use the same module.
I can uninvent the wheels I had to invent back in the day because no
wheels had been available back then or those that were available did
not work under operating systems I had to support.
The first version of Email::Sender was released 2008-12-10, the first
version of Mail::Sender was released sometime in 1998! That's ten
years of CPAN growth!
> The SYNOPSIS provides all (or very nearly all) the code Thomas needs,
> with very little tweaking besides configuration. How can it possibly be
> easier?
>
> This "use the old, bad tool because it's what the OP started with"
> approach leads only to pain and suffering.
>
>
> * having put it into production at a large ESP that handles thousands of
> per day, I'm pretty sure this is the case.
I'm incredibly impressed ...