←back to thread

MailCatcher runs a super simple SMTP server

(mailcatcher.me)
298 points mooreds | 6 comments | 18 Nov 24 16:51 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
iruoy ◴[18 Nov 24 18:48 UTC] No.42175560[source]▶
A tool like this is very useful, but this one isn't being maintained anymore. MailHog isn't either.

MailPit, MailCrab and smtp4dev are modern alternatives.

https://github.com/axllent/mailpit

https://github.com/tweedegolf/mailcrab

https://github.com/rnwood/smtp4dev

replies(17): >>42175787 #>>42175928 #>>42176115 #>>42176725 #>>42176926 #>>42177546 #>>42177804 #>>42178339 #>>42178590 #>>42178720 #>>42179230 #>>42180316 #>>42182891 #>>42183452 #>>42183958 #>>42184126 #>>42187070 #
masa331 ◴[18 Nov 24 19:10 UTC] No.42175787[source]▶
I use Mailcatcher for almost ten years now and never had a problem with it. Maybe is doesn't need maintenance?
replies(3): >>42175991 #>>42176177 #>>42178723 #
iruoy ◴[18 Nov 24 19:49 UTC] No.42176177[source]▶
There's no rush to move away from MailCatcher or MailHog, but if you're not using those solutions already I see no reason to use them over the maintained options.
replies(1): >>42178872 #
diggan ◴[19 Nov 24 00:28 UTC] No.42178872[source]▶
> I see no reason to use them over the maintained options

Things that don't change over a longer time period can be more comfortable sometimes. Especially things you use often and build up a sort of "muscle memory" about.

replies(1): >>42179572 #
rnewme ◴[19 Nov 24 02:31 UTC] No.42179572[source]▶
You ignored first part of that sentence.
replies(1): >>42179684 #
naniwaduni ◴[19 Nov 24 02:55 UTC] No.42179684[source]▶
"Not changing" has value in its own right.
replies(2): >>42179895 #>>42180483 #
fiddlerwoaroof ◴[19 Nov 24 03:36 UTC] No.42179895[source]▶
Yeah, people underestimate the value of “finished” software: in an ecosystem with lots of stable dependencies, there’s very little reason for useful software to change constantly.
replies(1): >>42180652 #
1. picohik ◴[19 Nov 24 06:49 UTC] No.42180652[source]▶
Even "finished" software needs maintenance. Nothing is ever bug-free so needs fixes. And it doesn't live in a vacuum, the ecosystem evolves and continuous adjustments are needed when APIs evolve or libraries change.

In well-written software, the maintenance burden is low, but it's not zero. Without any maintenance, you can maybe run some piece of software in some closed-off container for a while, but it will keep rotting away and eventually you won't even be able to compile it anymore.

replies(3): >>42182501 #>>42182894 #>>42183279 #
2. diggan ◴[19 Nov 24 12:00 UTC] No.42182501[source]▶
> Even "finished" software needs maintenance.

What about "GNU Hello", never finished? Clearly this isn't true for 100% of all software, so the only thing we can conclude is that it either "depends" and/or is very subjective.

> when APIs evolve or libraries change.

If you live/work inside an ecosystem that favor stability over "evolving APIs", you can actually be able to use libraries that are decades old, that doesn't have any bugs for the stuff they expose and things just work. I mostly experience this in the Clojure ecosystem, but I'm sure it's true for other ecosystems too.

replies(2): >>42183830 #>>42191375 #
3. account42 ◴[19 Nov 24 12:54 UTC] No.42182894[source]▶
> Nothing is ever bug-free

Neither is the maintained modern software. If the bugs that there are don't affect you then you don't actually need the fixes.

4. naniwaduni ◴[19 Nov 24 13:39 UTC] No.42183279[source]▶
Does "small burst of activity and dependency updates twice a year" seem inadequate to you? That's the scale of maintenance that the project in question seems to exhibit, which is what we're apparently calling not maintained.
5. e12e ◴[19 Nov 24 14:32 UTC] No.42183830[source]▶
>> What about "GNU Hello", never finished?

Most recently removing an outdated dependency?

> 2024-07-02 18:04:21 -0700 > maint: remove the obsolete gettext module

https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/hello.git/commit/?id=24225...

6. picohik ◴[20 Nov 24 06:52 UTC] No.42191375[source]▶
> be able to use libraries that are decades old, that doesn't have any bugs for the stuff they expose and things just work.

Acknowledging that all software has bugs is the first step to be able to produce high quality.

> I mostly experience this in the Clojure ecosystem, but I'm sure it's true for other ecosystems too.

How many decades exactly has your clojure existed without any bugs?