[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > I guess I will try this new version once it hits the archives (in i386) > > > and play with mail.services if I find some documentation to/for(?) that. > > Didn't upstream explain it? Just write > > pop3.SoftHome.Net pop > > to ~/.elm/mail.services. This works on PL95 as well. > > Well, is this explained somewhere (in the package, not bugs.debian.org)? > FAQ, README, or somewhere like that? Is there an explanation, why is it pop > and not pop3, for example? This type of documentation is what I had in mind.
As upstream already said, see README.ME+; I find it quite clear in PL99c. [...] > I don't agree the server should be "marked" as broken if it is configured in > such way. I simply don't see any way to determine whether it supports IMAP. > It could start with POP3 and then move onto IMAP, if POP3 is not responding. > :-) But then people with blocked POP3 would complain, wouldn't they? IMAP has more features and it makes sense to try it first. > Or the input could include (without supporting text files) information > that the server Elm is supposed to connect to is a POP3 server, that Elm is > not supposed to even try IMAP. This is the wishlist I had in mind (I think > :-) ). You've said so in your original report; upstream read it and obviously decided mail.services is enough. Thanks, Matej
