[gentoo-user] Re: Email clients
On 2023-07-29, Wols Lists wrote: > On 29/07/2023 14:54, Arsen Arsenović wrote: >> Again, it shouldn't be able to do that. Please check CONFIG_PROTECT >> using: portageq envvar CONFIG_PROTECT >> >> It should, normally, contain /etc, set by profiles/base/make.defaults. > > And here is the root of the mis-understanding between us. And also why > Dovecot does it right, and Postfix does it wrong. > > WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO USE DISPATCH-CONF? (Or in my case, etc-update.) > > The point is I don't (have to) care whether dovecot.conf is updated or > not. I never change it from the distro defaults, so it never offers me > etc-update, and it never does any damage. > > But I DO have to care about postfix/main.cf. This makes the > fundamental blunder of mixing distro defaults and local config in the > SAME FILE. So yes it does offer me etc-update. But if I MISS THAT, > I've just trashed my local config and have to rebuild it. > > At the end of the day, if you can't keep distro and local config > separate, that's a fault of the upstream application. etc-update and > dispatch-conf are gentoo's way of working round the breakage. IFF you > use dovecot/local.conf, it's a sign of good design by the upstream > application, and etc-update or dispatch-conf are completely > UNNECESSARY. > > Cheers, > Wol If you have a single file both with defaults (either as settings or commented out) and your changes, you get to see when defaults change, and it might be easier to notice, handle and adapt if some change requires adjusting the modified settings. I'd say having separate files also makes it possible to miss configuration changes. -- Nuno Silva
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Email clients
David On Mon, Jul 31, 2023, 4:22 PM Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2023-07-31, Kusoneko wrote: > > > > Jul 31, 2023 13:52:25 Grant Edwards : > > > >> On 2023-07-31, Kusoneko wrote: > >>> > Don't get me wrong, I'm "team plaintext" all day every day but I'm not > going to make my life more difficult on principles. There are hills > worth dying on but this isn't mine. > >>> > >>> Iirc, you can setup mutt to open html emails either in a web browser > >>> or with something like w3m. > >> > >> Wait -- those are web engines. I thought the argument was that mutt > >> didn't need a web engine. If that was the case, then you would have no > >> need to set up mutt to use them to display HTML email. > > > > Why would you want a mail client to also be a web browser when you > > already have a web browser to do that job? > > I don't want a mail client that's also a web browser. I want a mail > client that renders HTML. That's only a small small of what a web > browser does. Most of what a web browser does these days is provide an > environment in which to run JavaScript. > > > I will never understand the mindset of trying to include web > > browsers into everything. Web browsers are massive pieces of > > software, including one in everything massively increases the > > compile time and resource usage of the software it's added into. > > That's because they do a lot more than just render HTML. > > >>> There's no need for a web engine in a mail client when you have a > >>> perfectly workable web engine in the browser. > >> > >> Composing HTML also e-mails requires a web-engine. Sure, you can do > >> that using emacs, markdown mode, a web browser for previewing, and so > >> on. It's a lot of work. > > > > I don't get the point of composing HTML emails. Let's be honest > > here, unless you're writing emails as part of a company with > > complicated messes of html signatures or marketing emails, the only > > difference between composing a plain text email and a html email for > > most people is unnoticeable. > > I found that not to be the case for the Outlook users to whom I sent > e-mails. I was unable to figure out how to get mutt to generate > plaintext e-mails that were rendered properly by Outlook (e.g. using a > fixed font, honoring newlines and multiple spaces, etc.) in Outlook. > > It's also difficult to get plaintext e-mails to display in a > reasonable way on both a large screen and a small screen > (i.e. phone). I was not happy seeing what my plaintext, 72 column > e-mails looked like on a small phone screen. > > -- > Grant > > > >
[gentoo-user] Re: Email clients
On 2023-07-31, Kusoneko wrote: > > Jul 31, 2023 13:52:25 Grant Edwards : > >> On 2023-07-31, Kusoneko wrote: >>> Don't get me wrong, I'm "team plaintext" all day every day but I'm not going to make my life more difficult on principles. There are hills worth dying on but this isn't mine. >>> >>> Iirc, you can setup mutt to open html emails either in a web browser >>> or with something like w3m. >> >> Wait -- those are web engines. I thought the argument was that mutt >> didn't need a web engine. If that was the case, then you would have no >> need to set up mutt to use them to display HTML email. > > Why would you want a mail client to also be a web browser when you > already have a web browser to do that job? I don't want a mail client that's also a web browser. I want a mail client that renders HTML. That's only a small small of what a web browser does. Most of what a web browser does these days is provide an environment in which to run JavaScript. > I will never understand the mindset of trying to include web > browsers into everything. Web browsers are massive pieces of > software, including one in everything massively increases the > compile time and resource usage of the software it's added into. That's because they do a lot more than just render HTML. >>> There's no need for a web engine in a mail client when you have a >>> perfectly workable web engine in the browser. >> >> Composing HTML also e-mails requires a web-engine. Sure, you can do >> that using emacs, markdown mode, a web browser for previewing, and so >> on. It's a lot of work. > > I don't get the point of composing HTML emails. Let's be honest > here, unless you're writing emails as part of a company with > complicated messes of html signatures or marketing emails, the only > difference between composing a plain text email and a html email for > most people is unnoticeable. I found that not to be the case for the Outlook users to whom I sent e-mails. I was unable to figure out how to get mutt to generate plaintext e-mails that were rendered properly by Outlook (e.g. using a fixed font, honoring newlines and multiple spaces, etc.) in Outlook. It's also difficult to get plaintext e-mails to display in a reasonable way on both a large screen and a small screen (i.e. phone). I was not happy seeing what my plaintext, 72 column e-mails looked like on a small phone screen. -- Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Email clients
On Mon, 2023-07-31 at 14:46 -0400, Kusoneko wrote: > Why would you want a mail client to also be a web browser when you already > have a web browser to do that job? I will never understand the mindset of > trying to include web browsers into everything. Web browsers are massive > pieces of software, including one in everything massively increases the > compile time and resource usage of the software it's added into. This is why webkit-gtk exists as it does: so it can fulfill this role as part of multiple packages. I'm not defending it, I'm just saying it isn't completely nonsensical to have "browser as a library/module". > > > > Composing HTML also e-mails requires a web-engine. Sure, you can do > > that using emacs, markdown mode, a web browser for previewing, and so > > on. It's a lot of work. > > I don't get the point of composing HTML emails. Let's be honest here, unless > you're writing emails as part of a company with complicated messes of html > signatures or marketing emails, the only difference between composing a plain > text email and a html email for most people is unnoticeable. Or your company forcibly converts emails to HTML so that it can apply a signature, and you have no say in the matter. Like mine. So I write HTML mails from the get-go so I can have a (better) chance to ensure they are formatted correctly.
[gentoo-user] Re: Email clients
On 2023-07-31, Alexe Stefan wrote: >> >> Normally I would be in the chorus of "why do I need a whole entire web >> engine for an email client" but I'm also in the group of people who >> knows full well what the answer is. >> > > What is the answer? Most of us don't like reading HTML. > Mutt doesn't need a web engine. You must get e-mail from a different sort of sender than I do. -- Grant
[gentoo-user] Re: Email clients - what can replace Evolution?
On 2007-02-28, Nelson, David (ED, PARD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd second the revdep-rebuild solution. It's best knowing why it crashed rather than ignoring it in case it starts taking down other applications as well. A quick google however found: - Importing contacts to Thunderbird. USE THE SCRIPT AT YOUR OWN RISK. http://www.mepis.org/node/2916 Doesn't seem to work for me... -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! WHOA!! I'm having at a RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE visi.comright NOW!! -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] Re: Email clients - what can replace Evolution?
On 2007-02-28, Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2007-02-28, Nelson, David (ED, PARD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd second the revdep-rebuild solution. It's best knowing why it crashed rather than ignoring it in case it starts taking down other applications as well. A quick google however found: - Importing contacts to Thunderbird. USE THE SCRIPT AT YOUR OWN RISK. http://www.mepis.org/node/2916 Doesn't seem to work for me... I hacked on it a bit and got it working w/ evolution 2 and thunderbird 1.5: www.visi.com/~grante/evol2tbird-addressbook.py -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Now that we're at in LOVE, you can BUY visi.comthis GOLDFISH for a 48% DISCOUNT. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
