Steve Lamb wrote:
I have been specific. I have even given examples! PMMail and The Bat!
Screen shots alone for those two products speak volumes!
I don't know The Bat, but I use PMMail, and it's head and shoulders
above anything else I have seen. I don think it asking too much for
On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 10:27:44PM -0400, Neil L. Roeth wrote:
My impression is that you think that to get mail from several sources
with fetchmail and have it put into separate folders requires that you
dump it into a single file and then filter using regular expressions
in procmail.
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, John Pearson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:31:07AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote
Technically, yes. However, if your boss says that work email is not to
touch outside SMTP servers as a matter of policy how far do you think Well,
the SMTP server will route it
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 10:39:01PM -0700, Seth Cohn wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, John Pearson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:31:07AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote
Technically, yes. However, if your boss says that work email is not
to
touch outside SMTP servers as a matter of policy
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 10:39:01PM -0700, Seth Cohn wrote
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, John Pearson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:31:07AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote
Technically, yes. However, if your boss says that work email is not
to
touch outside SMTP servers as a matter of policy
David Teague wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, John Pearson wrote:
[snip]
I differentiate between MUAs, MDAs, and MTAs; examples are:
MUA: mutt
MDA: procmail
MTA: exim
John,
1) What do MTA, MUA, MDA stand for?
MTA: Mail Transfer Agent
MDA: Mail Delivery Agent
MUA: Mail
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:40:33AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
No, I mean exactly what an MUA says it is. Mutt is an MUA but, to me, it
is not a mail client. A mail client is able to transfer and manipulate the
required data without need of other programs. A constant example I give,
which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wednesday, August 23, 2000, 5:33:38 PM, John wrote:
*sigh* bosses, bosses, bosses. All other arguments in this thread
aside, this one is a bit weird. Does your boss realise that any
non-local mail you send via your work SMTP server will be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wednesday, August 23, 2000, 12:30:25 PM, Matthew wrote:
This level of modularization offers far more power and flexibility, as it
becomes easier to implement new features and capabilities (as the amount of
code that has to be re-implemented from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thursday, August 24, 2000, 12:19:06 PM, Will wrote:
maybe this is the snag you're caught on:
Nope, it isn't where I am getting caught on.
in the unix paradigm (which linux inhereted/cloned) the idea is to
make modules that serve a certain
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 08:18:23AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
Well, gee, if you'd open your eyes and READ.. I DID GIVE THE NAME! In
fact, I gave it well before describing where it was but since people couldn't
find it from the NAME I thought maybe giving the exact location of it in the
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Steve Lamb wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thursday, August 24, 2000, 12:19:06 PM, Will wrote:
maybe this is the snag you're caught on:
Nope, it isn't where I am getting caught on.
in the unix paradigm (which linux inhereted/cloned) the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thursday, August 24, 2000, 12:45:11 PM, Daniel wrote:
Don't you guys think you have beaten this thing into the ground. Enough
already. Give it a rest. I don't think you are ever going to get through to
Mr. Lamb. If you are that unhappy about mail
On Thursday, 24 August 2000 at 13:01, Steve Lamb wrote:
Hash: SHA1
Thursday, August 24, 2000, 12:45:11 PM, Daniel wrote:
Don't you guys think you have beaten this thing into the ground. Enough
already. Give it a rest. I don't think you are ever going to get through to
Mr. Lamb. If you
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 12:38:41AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
So there is another part of the process. You know what that is?
Admitting there is a problem.
Something that you, Brian, and loads others cannot admit. That there is a
problem in the current spectrum of how mail is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thursday, August 24, 2000, 1:51:58 PM, Will wrote:
where, in that mix, is there a problem?
Hmmm, maybe the fact that you don't mind the mixed-up mess that those
tools force you into?
- --
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm
Hi,
I've been following this thread for a while now, and I'm unsure of a few
things. Perhaps you can clear things up a little.
First, I'm unclear as to whether you are claiming that the traditional unix
methods for handling mail cannot handle your needs, or if you are saying
that you have a
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Steve Lamb wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thursday, August 24, 2000, 12:45:11 PM, Daniel wrote:
Don't you guys think you have beaten this thing into the ground. Enough
already. Give it a rest. I don't think you are ever going to get through to
It's like a car wreck, I just had to look...
Personal Quote:
Then ingenuity of human stupidity will never cease to amaze me. -- Steve Lamb
http://www.dmiyu.org/~grey/morpheus.html
--
Jonathan Crockett Once and Done Network Engineer
GPG Key ID 1024D/EA788479
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:47:16AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
There is no concept of personalities. Click in the account you want to
use, click new message, it uses that account. The Bat! offers the choice of
changing which accout you use after opening the new message.
Personality,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thursday, August 24, 2000, 4:52:34 PM, Mark wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:47:16AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
There is no concept of personalities. Click in the account you want to
use, click new message, it uses that account. The Bat!
On Aug 23, Steve Lamb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:53:43PM -0700, brian moore wrote:
Huh? From a single source?
Yes, a single source. Fetchmail.
Note that in my example (if you had bothered to read it), you would have
seen that ~/.procmailrc was
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 08:21:53PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:21:15PM -0700, brian moore wrote:
Note that the filtering is done by fetchmail. If you don't want
filters, then don't specify that portion of the command line.
Which proves my point that you need to
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:47:49PM -0700, Seth Cohn wrote:
So go ahead, start a sourceforge project page, and write a damn clone.
Go look on Sourceforge in the email clients and notice what the first one
/is/.
The first one is acmemail (and it's
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:53:43PM -0700, brian moore wrote:
Huh? From a single source?
Yes, a single source. Fetchmail.
Note that in my example (if you had bothered to read it), you would have
seen that ~/.procmailrc was irrelevant. Each pop3 mailbox had its own
(optional)
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:56:11PM -0700, Seth Cohn wrote:
The first one is acmemail (and it's not what we are talking about here).
My apologies. Ever since I started the project several months ago it was
the first listed project. I had assumed it was still the case as it was the
last time
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:36:14AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 07:21:38PM +0930, John Pearson wrote:
.forward file allows you to filter your mail into any number of
separate mailfolders at delivery time, based on a wide range of
criteria including the contents of the
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 12:34:17AM -0700, brian moore wrote:
And I fail to see how a single fetchmail process reading from n servers,
with m mailboxes on each, and delivering each remote mailbox to some
number greater than m boxes on your machine is anything but what you
asked for.
I fail
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 12:38:41AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
This list does matter. Every time someone says, I want something like
this you know what the immediate knee-jerk reaction is? You don't want
that. What you want to do is this. That is utter bullshit and you know it.
/me is
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 09:21:58AM +0930, John Pearson wrote:
Well, that certainly indicates one reason why I'm having difficulty coming
to grips with your requirement; we have a problem over terminology.
Actually, we don't. The problem is that people aren't willing to look
past the
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:29:32AM -0700, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
There area great many things that people suggest as features or why
doesn't it work this way, which have been tried, and either don't work,
produce security holes, or introduce (generally unnecessary) complexity
into the
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:04:31AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 12:34:17AM -0700, brian moore wrote:
And I fail to see how a single fetchmail process reading from n servers,
with m mailboxes on each, and delivering each remote mailbox to some
number greater than m boxes
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 02:05:35AM -0700, brian moore wrote:
You're the one that keeps bringing up 'accounts'. I keep asking what the
concept of an 'account' has to do with mailboxes.
Mail account.
Again, Steve, I have accounts on machines with no mailboxes. I have
mailboxes on
Steve Lamb wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 12:02:00PM -0500, Mark Schiltz wrote:
After hashing through all your comments, I believe I know what you want.
An email client that has a folder for [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED],
etc. (but dosn't call it a folder) with sub-folders for
Steve Lamb wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:33:48PM -0400, David Zoll wrote:
[snip]
1) Fetchmail, which will grab the mail from separate accounts, and
stuff it through...
Requires filtering to separate out accounts which should be separate in
the first place.
The way I see it,
Steve Lamb wrote:
[snip]
I have been specific. I have even given examples! PMMail and The Bat!
Screen shots alone for those two products speak volumes!
OK, I've gone and looked at the websites for those two products. I
can't really test either effectively in the real world since:
* both
Steve Lamb wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:47:49PM -0700, Seth Cohn wrote:
So go ahead, start a sourceforge project page, and write a damn clone.
Go look on Sourceforge in the email clients and notice what the first one
/is/.
It's acmemail
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:50:27AM -0400, Cory Snavely wrote:
If that's the case, how far is Netscape Communicator from doing what you
want (using IMAP)? Have as many IMAP accounts as you want (Netscape
doesn't seem to consider them folders), plus a folder structure for
each, distinct Inboxes
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 10:04:38AM -0400, David Zoll wrote:
Go look on Sourceforge in the email clients and notice what the first
one /is/.
It's acmemail (https://sourceforge.net/projects/acmemail/). It's a
webmail program that sounds nothing like what you were describing.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 10:00:54AM -0400, David Zoll wrote:
OK, I've gone and looked at the websites for those two products. I
can't really test either effectively in the real world since:
* both cost money I'm not willing to spend on this, and;
The Bat! has a 30 day trial period,
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 05:05:56PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 08:44:08PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
;-) . Having used Outlook, which seems to be the example people are
quoting of something that supports this I actually prefer the separate
*cough* I have stated two
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 09:27:40AM -0400, David Zoll wrote:
there is a third choice (and I don't mean something that filters but
calls it something else), I'd love to hear about it.
Simply stated, one program that has two instances in itself. Like an
editor which can edit two buffers at
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 03:25:02PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
I've never used either of those. How do they look from a user interface
point of view? I'm thinking of things like starting a new mail and
deciding which personality it's going to use.
There is no concept of personalities.
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:56:11PM -0700, Seth Cohn wrote:
Brian and I said the same thing, and you complained in the answer to him
that GNU/Linux isn't just about coding. You are right, it's also about
particpating in the process. This means doing things like using betas and
Free software:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 03:44:12PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
Free software: contribute nothing, expect nothing
As members of the Debian project are sure to tell you there are more ways
to contribute than just code. Documentation and testing are two examples that
I see recurring all the time
%% Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's acmemail (https://sourceforge.net/projects/acmemail/). It's a
webmail program that sounds nothing like what you were describing.
sl Acmemail is the first in email, not email clients. Note above I
sl said email clients and not email.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 10:52:43AM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
sl Acmemail is the first in email, not email clients. Note above I
sl said email clients and not email. Would you kindly check again in
sl the right area and tell me what the first project is?
ALM? Doesn't look like
Steve Lamb wrote:
It is AIMS
Prototype. While there is not a lot there what is there is part of what was
asked for.
the description states, See the forum for more details. Given that
the project is still in the planning
%% Regarding Re: Linux Mail Client; you wrote:
sl On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 10:52:43AM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
sl Acmemail is the first in email, not email clients. Note above I
sl said email clients and not email. Would you kindly check again in
sl the right area and tell me what
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:10:16AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
Close, but not perfect. They insist on sending everything out a single
SMTP server.
This requirement I really don't get: what practical difference does it make?
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 11:13:42AM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
sl *sigh* We must be having a serious problem somewhere. I just
sl checked for the third time since last night. First project in
sl Email Clients is not acmemail (email) nor ALM (who knows where
sl that came from). It is
I wrote:
There's about one page of text in the entire project, which you
could have re-posted here. We would have been submitted to
_less_ traffic.
Heck, I'll post the stupid URL!
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=811
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 11:14:00AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
There's about one page of text in the entire project, which you
could have re-posted here. We would have been submitted to
_less_ traffic.
You forgot to quote where I stated that there was two purposes, one of
which was to
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 23/08/2000 (17:21) :
Heck, I'll post the stupid URL!
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=811
:-) Which of course should have been done in the first place by the
project leader.
As the amount of work involved in making an email client
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 23/08/2000 (16:49) :
I would be delighted if they took that route. However, the screen shots
Have you talked to them? Send an explanation and perhaps they find it a
good idea and implement it?
--
Preben Randhol - Ph. D student -
%% Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
sl On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 11:13:42AM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
sl *sigh* We must be having a serious problem somewhere. I just
sl checked for the third time since last night. First project in
sl Email Clients is not acmemail (email) nor ALM
No, I mean exactly what an MUA says it is. Mutt is an MUA but, to me,
it
is not a mail client. A mail client is able to transfer and manipulate
the
required data without need of other programs. A constant example I give,
which is flawed as all are, is web browsing. A web browser is,
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, John Pearson wrote:
[snip]
I differentiate between MUAs, MDAs, and MTAs; examples are:
MUA: mutt
MDA: procmail
MTA: exim
John,
1) What do MTA, MUA, MDA stand for?
I know that mutt is a mailer, not unlike exim and smail, but has
other functionality.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:31:07AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 09:27:40AM -0400, David Zoll wrote:
[snip-o-rama]
Which can then route the mail to the appropriate mail server. This is
how SMTP was designed to work.
Technically, yes. However, if your boss says that
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 03:42:16PM -0400, David Teague wrote
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, John Pearson wrote:
[snip]
I differentiate between MUAs, MDAs, and MTAs; examples are:
MUA: mutt
MDA: procmail
MTA: exim
John,
1) What do MTA, MUA, MDA stand for?
MTA - mail
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Monday, August 21, 2000, 11:05:16 AM, John wrote:
An accurate description of any attempt to discuss email software with
Mr. Lamb.
Only because Unix people have been brainwashed into thinking
there is only one TRUE WAY of doing it.
Uh, in true
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 10:50:18AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
Right, and have to stuff them into a single account to get at them with a
single client. That, to me, is inelegant. For good reasons I do /not/ mix my
personal and professional email. Using fetchmail in the prescribed manner to
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 21/08/2000 (17:59) :
Hate to tell you but fetchmail is not more elegant. In fact, I find it
quite archaic. I don't know about you, but there is something about pulling 2
accounts worth of mail, dumping them into a single local account and then have
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 05:46:00PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.fetchmailrc can have:
[]
user x is mark here
[]
user y is julie here
Requires a local account for what really isn't a separate account on the
local machine. This is a piss-poor hack.
Alternatively, if you
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:52:08AM +0200, Preben Randhol wrote:
I think it is you that has done something wrong in the setup.
No, I refuse to accept a mediocre solution.
I have setup fetchmail on a machine to fetch mail for both users of that
machine from the ISP. One of the users even
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 22/08/2000 (09:58) :
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:52:08AM +0200, Preben Randhol wrote:
I think it is you that has done something wrong in the setup.
No, I refuse to accept a mediocre solution.
Would you please explain how you would make the software
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 12:54:58AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 05:46:00PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.fetchmailrc can have:
[]
user x is mark here
[]
user y is julie here
Requires a local account for what really isn't a separate account on the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So far all the Linux clients have taken the Eudora/Lookout!/Pegasus
approach to email. Either everything goes into a single inbox and
you need to filter out from there and set up personalities or you
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 12:54:58AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 05:46:00PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.fetchmailrc can have:
[]
user x is mark here
[]
user y is julie here
Requires a local account for what really isn't a separate account on the
Of course you could also use fetchmail's mda option to make an
account be delivered to an arbitrary file.
But you probably don't care about that. What I've learned from this
long and silly thread is there are plenty of ways to receive mail from
several accounts and keep them separated, but none
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 11:41:17AM -0400, Brendan Cully wrote:
But you probably don't care about that. What I've learned from this
long and silly thread is there are plenty of ways to receive mail from
several accounts and keep them separated, but none that you like. Too
bad.
Great
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 03:51:42PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
I don't see it that way. Why should they be forced to create a whole new
account to access mail on a different server in a completely different
fashion. No other client/server setup requires the user to do that, why sould
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 07:21:38PM +0930, John Pearson wrote:
.forward file allows you to filter your mail into any number of
separate mailfolders at delivery time, based on a wide range of
criteria including the contents of the headers.
Now take it a step further, what do you do on the
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 05:14:24PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
Generally, you should just be able to tell your mail client to use a
different configuration.
Hack. The mail client should be able to do that internally.
As far as I'm aware all the MUAs with non-trivial support for IMAP can
Monday, August 21, 2000, 11:35:05 AM, Mark wrote:
I am somewhat tempted to ask why if you want to keep two sets of mail
separate sets of mail you find it imperative to handle them both with
one instance of a program.
Convenience. There is no good reason not to, really. Why should I
Steve,
After hashing through all your comments, I believe I know what you want.
An email client that has a folder for [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED],
etc. (but dosn't call it a folder) with sub-folders for inbox,outbox,etc. (its
ok to call these folders) for each of the above non-folders.
Monday, August 21, 2000, 11:35:05 AM, Mark wrote:
I am somewhat tempted to ask why if you want to keep two sets of mail
separate sets of mail you find it imperative to handle them both with
one instance of a program.
Convenience. There is no good reason not to, really. Why
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 03:34:04PM +0100, Matthew Sackman wrote:
I think that it is slightly unreasonable to expect to be able to keep two
email accounts separate on your local machine and yet demand to be able to
access both through a single instance of your MUA.
Why? That is exactly
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 12:02:00PM -0500, Mark Schiltz wrote:
An email client that has a folder for [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED],
etc. (but dosn't call it a folder) with sub-folders for inbox,outbox,etc. (its
ok to call these folders) for each of the above non-folders. Does that about
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 03:34:04PM +0100, Matthew Sackman wrote:
I think that it is slightly unreasonable to expect to be able to keep
two email accounts separate on your local machine and yet demand to be
able to access both through a single instance of your MUA.
I think so, too.
To me,
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:37:32AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 05:14:24PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
Generally, you should just be able to tell your mail client to use a
different configuration.
Hack. The mail client should be able to do that internally.
It seems
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 12:02:00PM -0500, Mark Schiltz wrote:
An email client that has a folder for [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED],
etc. (but dosn't call it a folder) with sub-folders for inbox,outbox,etc.
(its
ok to call these folders) for
Steve Lamb wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 11:41:17AM -0400, Brendan Cully wrote:
But you probably don't care about that. What I've learned from this
long and silly thread is there are plenty of ways to receive mail from
several accounts and keep them separated, but none that you like.
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 08:44:08PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
;-) . Having used Outlook, which seems to be the example people are
quoting of something that supports this I actually prefer the separate
instances method. Seamlessness is all very well, but things like
deciding which account new
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:33:48PM -0400, David Zoll wrote:
OK, you want mail from separate accounts to be collected into separate
locations in one account, each with their own set of subfolders, and a
mail client which can understand this, and send outgoing mail
appropriately for the account
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 05:10:54PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:33:48PM -0400, David Zoll wrote:
OK, you want mail from separate accounts to be collected into separate
locations in one account, each with their own set of subfolders, and a
mail client which can
Steve Lamb continues to complain:
I have been specific. I have even given examples! PMMail and The Bat!
Screen shots alone for those two products speak volumes!
So go ahead, start a sourceforge project page, and write a damn clone.
As someone who uses many email addresses, belongs to
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:47:49PM -0700, Seth Cohn wrote:
So go ahead, start a sourceforge project page, and write a damn clone.
Go look on Sourceforge in the email clients and notice what the first one
/is/.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:21:15PM -0700, brian moore wrote:
Note that the filtering is done by fetchmail. If you don't want
filters, then don't specify that portion of the command line.
Which proves my point that you need to filter from a single source.
Completely stupid.
3)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wednesday, August 16, 2000, 6:19:39 PM, John wrote:
from the fetchmail man page:
Too bad fetchmail isn't a client, huh?
- --
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wednesday, August 16, 2000, 6:30:22 PM, John wrote:
i do appreciate that the fetchmail approach is more elegant.. but it is more
daunting too.
Hate to tell you but fetchmail is not more elegant. In fact, I find it
quite archaic. I don't know
If you have dialup access with many users with different pop accounts (like my
family
once), you can grab everybody's mail as soon as anyone connects with ppp. That
way,
nobody has to dial in to check mail--it's already grabbed.
Also, you can grab pop mail from multiple servers if you're like
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hate to tell you but fetchmail is not more elegant. In fact, I
find it
quite archaic. I don't know about you, but there is something about
pulling 2
accounts worth of mail, dumping them into a single local account and
then have
to filter it all
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Monday, August 21, 2000, 10:11:17 AM, Michael wrote:
Also, you can grab pop mail from multiple servers if you're like the typical
guy and have 5+ mail addresses.
Right, and have to stuff them into a single account to get at them with a
single
Phillip Deackes wrote:
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hate to tell you but fetchmail is not more elegant. In fact, I
find it
quite archaic. I don't know about you, but there is something about
pulling 2
accounts worth of mail, dumping them into a single local account and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Monday, August 21, 2000, 10:09:55 AM, Phillip wrote:
No, no, no!!! hitting head against nearest wall
Ah, yes, the sound of a fetchmail user trying to wrap his brain around a
new concept.
On my machine fetchmail fetches all mail from my ISP
Phillip Deackes writes:
hitting head against nearest wall
An accurate description of any attempt to discuss email software with
Mr. Lamb.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Monday, August 21, 2000, 11:05:16 AM, John wrote:
An accurate description of any attempt to discuss email software with
Mr. Lamb.
Only because Unix people have been brainwashed into thinking there is only
one TRUE WAY of doing it.
- --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Monday, August 21, 2000, 10:56:54 AM, Kent wrote:
I use IMAP on my office computer and home computer. Anything I want to
keep I transfer to folders on one of the local computers. But this
allows me to read my Inbox from anywhere I can setup an IMAP
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 10:50:18AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
Right, and have to stuff them into a single account to get at them with a
single client. That, to me, is inelegant. For good reasons I do /not/ mix my
personal and professional email. Using fetchmail in the prescribed manner to
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
