17-Apr-02 at 10:23, Nico Schottelius ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote : > okay, this will be what I will do soon, but I am wondering why we shouldn't > allow mutt to fork out the pop process.
POP3 support seems to be more of an afterthought. Most people who use POP to access their mailboxes swear by fetchmail. Mutt is principally for accessing local spool files, and has reasonable IMAP support too. It would be a shift in the philosophy of Mutt, as I understand it, for Mutt to have full POP support. Problems people have had with POP that I have seen have consistently been told to use fetchmail. There is of course the argument that as soon as native POP support is included in the source tree for Mutt, then it should be a good implementation. That is a question for the developers. The current development team have other priorities for Mutt (and possibly other projects), but if someone wanted to implement POP downloading with forks and so on, then there's nothing stopping them. Already a number of patches are available to extend Mutt functionality... it's your call, if you can improve the POP support, I suppose. Not really my place to say much more than that, until I learn to code in C ;-) -- [Simon White. vim/mutt. [EMAIL PROTECTED] GIMPS:76.07% see www.mersenne.org] Recognizing disagreements in belief requires having enough agreements in belief to translate or understand the words and deeds of my opponent. -- Anthony O'Hear (combining, somewhat, several modern philosophers).
