model id. (Obtain by burn program, or lshw, or by its name in
> /dev/disk/by-id.)
TSSTcorp CDDVDW SH-224DB SB01: Does NOT pull in.
--
Mark Rousell
ind suitable
companies for yourself.
> Therefore my own method of a simple visit is perfectly fine...for me,
> which is the point.
Ok, I do understand that you are only interested in doing it that way.
--
Mark Rousell
u could
actually be helpful to you in terms of finding the company you need.
Nevertheless, I accept that you only want to do it via testing each
company individually, without learning more about what it is you really
need.
--
Mark Rousell
finally working solution.
--
Mark Rousell
On 19/11/2019 18:37, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2019, Mark Rousell wrote:
>>
>> What these pieces of software do need is to be hosted somewhere. The
>> easiest and best way for that to be done is to be hosted by an ISP or
>> email service provider. In
s that actually do host the webmail software that works as you
need it.
Finding out what works (in terms of webmail software) would surely be an
advance on where you are now, as it would then allow you to find email
companies that host it.
--
Mark Rousell
On 19/11/2019 18:40, Karen Lewellen wrote:
> Not at all, just answer the question asked...as others have done.
I really have done -- at very considerable length and in detail. :-)
--
Mark Rousell
her or not their webmail software works properly for you.
See also my other longer email just posted.
--
Mark Rousell
e giving
you a chance to do some research (alone or perhaps with assistants) to
help yourself in the search for a company.
--
Mark Rousell
ossibility of demo accounts.
--
Mark Rousell
a webmail client that works for her but the above is
also a wholly viable solution for her needs as stated below.
On 19/11/2019 16:50, Mark Rousell wrote:
>
>
> On 19/11/2019 16:42, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Monday 18 November 2019 17:48:30 Karen Lewellen wrote:
>>
>> To r
stood, I was aware of this earlier thread and all of my comments
here have been made in the context of this request.
Nothing I have suggested requires Karen to host her own email. I was
suggesting what she would need to look for in terms of webmail software
that would be posted by other ISPs/service providers/etc.
--
Mark Rousell
relmail and Prayer
> Webmail.
Thanks.
--
Mark Rousell
requirement is quite exacting, so it would be
helpful for you to know what software you are looking for from a service
provider.
At no point did I suggest running a server yourself. That's not needed here.
--
Mark Rousell
On 19/11/2019 08:34, juh wrote:
> open source software like roundcube.
Do you know if Roundcube works well without Javascript?
--
Mark Rousell
thank you!
Note that this is what I suggested, just with more detail in my case!
--
Mark Rousell
script? I'd have thought that, in practice, both of these
are more likely (than SquirrelMail) to be standard offerings from ISPs
nowadays.
--
Mark Rousell
o runs one of webmail clients that
you can use or you will need to get a web hosting account that allows
you to run one of them privately.
--
Mark Rousell
content a plus.
> Anyone have a suggestion for an email service?
> Thanks,
> Karen
How about Thunderbird? I.e. Instead of a webmail client, use a local
mail client accessing your mailbox via IMAP.
Sooner or later, all webmail clients are going to be utterly dependent
on Javascript.
--
Mark Rousell
other as a pristine
original record. Or perhaps one for Mutt and the other for Dovecot.
> Whichever way I go, I thank you for recommending the IMAP approach.
Glad to help.
--
Mark Rousell
04:44, Russell L. Harris wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 04:10:17AM +0000, Mark Rousell wrote:
>> Set up a local IMAP server instead? :-)
>
> I found a HOWTO:
> https://www.linux.com/news/how-build-local-imap-server/
> but I have not read though it.
I should also say that I o
le in all scenarios.
So I don't think TB would be a solution to access your current maildir
structure.
Set up a local IMAP server instead? :-)
--
Mark Rousell
Elm
* REXX
* Coldfusion CFML
* ActionScript
* Algol
* MS-DOS/CMD Batch
* TCL
* AWK (see also Sed)
* Forth
* Haxe
* Matlab
* Boo (a .NET language)
* Microsoft QBasic (and similar)
* Prolog
--
Mark Rousell
On 28/08/2018 23:25, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:24:51PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
>>If you have a bunch of users on remote SMTP and NNTP servers then
>> it's
>>always a wash. (MUAs don't typically download the entire message body
>>un
100, Mark Rousell wrote:
>> web forums, app-based, IM-style, etc.) but none of that, to my mind,
>> lessens
>> NNTP's ideal applicability to getting private discussion group
>> messages from
>> place to place (the front end UI/UX being a different thing again).
>
> Ig
On 28/08/2018 19:33, Mark Rousell wrote:
> And ISPs' historical problems Usenet's massive bandwidth due to
> binaries does not change the fact that NNTP is very good for message
> distribution.
Missing "with" in the above.
--
Mark Rousell
hich he could receive emails from mail
lists, rather than a mail list provider.
Nevertheless, thanks for your mail list software suggestions. I've heard
of Sympa but never seen them described in the manner you did here. And I
am sorry to say that I had never heard of GroupServer before. Thanks for
the useful information.
--
Mark Rousell
On 28/08/2018 19:23, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> On 8/28/18 1:48 PM, Michael Stone wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 05:02:08PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
>>> Lots of people download files from FTP servers but that's a wholly
>>> different
>>> cu
robably just write
> the volume of such transfers off as noise in the real world.
You seem to be again conflating Usenet's issues relating to huge
bandwidth due to mass distribution of binaries with the completely
different use case of NNTP that is the subject of this thread.
--
Mark Rousell
t's
entirely feasible.
--
Mark Rousell
On 28/08/2018 15:27, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 02:52:36PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
>> Except for perhaps hacked servers in some cases, FTP never did have
>> much of a
>> part to play in binaries distribution from what I could see.
>
> I guess you d
it) when a thread gets as
convoluted as this one.
We can agree to agree about that which we agree about, and to disagree
about that which we disagree about. :-)
--
Mark Rousell
On 28/08/2018 14:52, Mark Rousell wrote:
> Additionally, both FTP and HTTP are not federated, many-to-many
> services or systems. I say again that Usenet was unique in this
> timeframe for the use case of public access, one-to-many, binary
> distribution.
The above is not compl
rections and are
beginning to conflate somewhat issues. I'm not pitching NNTP as a
replacement for this sort of scenario
In the original context of this sub-thread, that is access to discussion
groups like this one, NNTP has advantages. This is its ideal use case
alongside email. It is the fact that both email and NNTP are
standardised that appeals to users in this context, as well as the
cleanness and efficiency of these protocols compared to web browser
based access or other UIs or access methodologies.
--
Mark Rousell
On 28/08/2018 13:16, Mark Rousell wrote:
>
> Footnote:-
> 1: A more recent example of a very similar skewed and confused view of
> things is the Casio F-91 watch. Certain elements of US intelligence
> had noticed that many terrorist suspects arrested in Iraq were wearing
> the
On 28/08/2018 13:55, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 01:16:45PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
>> NNTP was inefficient in this regard compared to what other protocol or
>> protocols, exactly?
>
> FTP and later HTTP, which handled binaries efficiently. In fact,
e user (and type of user).
Note also that the front end user experience is not necessarily directly
dependent on the transport protocol. For example, it is entirely
feasible for a front end that looks and works much like Tapatalk or like
the mobile web versions of popular web forums to communicate with its
back end via NNTP, or to communicate with different back ends using a
range of protocols (e.g. NNTP, email, REST, and so on).
--
Mark Rousell
ists. And yet the
intelligence people were ignorant of the wider popularity of the F-91W
and extrapolated incorrectly from the limited (skewed) data set of which
they were aware. Similar errors of limited vision, confusion, and skew
were made in the timeframe we're discussing here by some people running
training course for professionals.
--
Mark Rousell
ith the NNTP protocol per se.
NNTP is not a bandwidth hog. It is not now and never has been.
Usenet was (and still is) a bandwidth hog, but it would have been so no
matter protocol was used to transmit it.
--
Mark Rousell
NTP
may have fallen out of favour for this type of use case (primarily in
favour of web forums as things now stand) but it can and does still do
the job in a bandwidth-efficient manner.
Footnote:-
1: For example, Mozilla still use NNTP discussions groups which are
mirrored as email lists.
--
Mark Rousell
t mail lists
continue to have great practical utility.
--
Mark Rousell
broken.
--
Mark Rousell
42 matches
Mail list logo
