On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 10:30:38AM +0200, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> > That's really the main reason that Mutt's POP3 support is so lame:
> > Because fetchmail does it better, so there's no point in doing all the
> > work to improve Mutt's support.
>
> Fetchmail is not interactive. Mutt could use this advantage over
> fetchmail. If it doesn't, I do not see reasons for POP3 client in Mutt
> at all.
>
Yes, this is exactly my original point, there are situations where one
wants to _interactively_ decide whether to download and/or delete mail
from a POP3 server. No combination of fetchmail/procmail can do this.
There are now a few Unix MUAs which handle POP3 mail quite nicely
giving the user an interface which makes the POP3 mailbox appear as
much as possible like an IMAP4 or local one. Headers are displayed
and one can then delete, view, etc. as required. This *can't* be done
using fetchmail/procmail. (e.g. tkrat, mahogany and others)
Fetchmail I believe handles IMAP4 mailboxes quite well, why not
advocate that fetching IMAP4 mail isn't mutt's job either?
> Perhaps this job would be perfect for a different standalone tool,
> however Mutt already does something like this with IMAP folders.
>
> (I do understand that IMAP would be better, but not every mail provider
> supports it. Most of them don't even support APOP...)
>
Exactly! POP3 isn't as nice as IMAP4 but is ubiquitous. By all means
campaign for ISPs to provide us with IMAP4 servers but meanwhile we
need the tools to work with the mail service we have.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
