←back to thread

297 points mooreds | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
iruoy ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] No.42179572[source]
You ignored first part of that sentence.
replies(1): >>42179684 #
naniwaduni ◴[] No.42179684[source]
"Not changing" has value in its own right.
replies(2): >>42179895 #>>42180483 #
fiddlerwoaroof ◴[] 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 #
picohik ◴[] 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 #
diggan ◴[] 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 #
1. picohik ◴[] 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?