Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 someone who is working on one of the other MUAs to check it out and try to incorporate some of its features. I have to assume from the contents of this thread that there is nothing in Linux that will do the (entire) job. Cam
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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. Nope. I feel that if one wants to have filters that separate mailing lists out on a per account basis one must also have the filters contain logic to know which account those lists are going to so they also know which subdirectory to place them into. So, for example, if I have lists for foo and bar and they are directories under ~/Mail how will a filter know that incoming mail from a mailing list is to bar and place it in ~/Mail/bar/lists/barlist without that logic in the filter itself? uses procmail, but does not even require a procmail configuration file, and therefore has no regular expressions, much less any to modify, to put mail from separate mail accounts into separate folders on your local machine. Mail from separate accounts *never* gets merged into a single source from which it needs to be filtered. But it also doesn't get filtered at all so all incoming mail from all mailing lists is merged together once again. While I use mutt in this configuration and find it up to the task I don't enjoy it and would much rather the mail be separated out with mutt providing me a constant, on-screen overview of what accounts and folders within those accounts have new mail. Extensions to allow the folder to have a different name than the mail server, and to invoke fetchmail just once for all your mail servers, are obvious. The above assumes one account per mail server, but that is not hard to relax, either. True. problem of the mail clients. As others have pointed out, you can configure existing mail clients to send it out via the correct server with hooks attached to the folders. That sounds darn close to what you want. Close, but not ideal to what I need. This is something I cannot waver upon. Thank you for your insight, though. We are all looking forward to trying out the mail client you build that does exactly what you want - I would like the Emacs version :-) Nope, no Emacs. :P I find it humourous that later on you ask why one should build SMTP into a mail client yet, apparently, have no problems with an editor that has a built in FTP client, web client, mail and news client... :) I don't understand why you object to your mail client invoking an instance of, say, sendmail in order to contact the appropriate outgoing server for the particular message you are sending. Some process has to contact that server using SMTP, why build SMTP into a mail client when there is already an existing program that does that? The assumption is that there is a sendmail to envoke. In a private message to someone else I finally was able to put to words why I say an SMTP interface is a requirement for a mail client in my mind. Let me see if I can rewrite what I wrote there (at work on a different client and I don't have my ZIP disk with me to get at those archives). It all comes down to defining an interface. When an MUA calls an MTA now it is traditionally via the command line. However, this is not the only way one can call an MTA. SMTP is just another interface to that MTA, IMHO. However, there are two differences between the command-line and SMTP that I can see. 1: Command-line you're limited to the local machine doing delivery. I do not think a blind handoff is a delivery so having a local SMTP server doing nothing but smart-host handoffs is a waste of resources. 2: SMTP is a defined standard (RFC821 IIRC) whereas command-line has no defined standard of getting the message to the MTA. The current ad hoc standard is Sendmail replacement which means it mimics sendmail's behavior as of version x with no guarentees that it mimics any recent command-line interface chances. And let's not even get into the grand-daddy issue of sendmail. Tell me, what is the default location of sendmail again? /etc? /lib? /usr/bin? /usr/sbin? /usr/lib? I forget what it is on OS/2 and BeOS. I forget if BeOS has a variant of sendmail. Correct me if I'm wrong but in fetchmail's past it didn't directly call the MDA but, instead, fed the messages into the MTA through SMTP. I do believe that is still an option. I would also like to think that fetchmail also allows the option of feeding into a different machine's SMTP server. In fact, a quick check of the man page on fetchmail's man page says that it does. Now, the MTA's job is to know how to deliver the message from one machine to another. Great, the MTA is still there to do that. But by building SMTP into the client you have the added option of not being forced to use the local MTA, if indeed there is one. There is a difference between adding another interface into a mail server and adding in the functionality of
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 correctly anyway, that is what they do will fly? There are reasons other than technical to different servers. *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 handed, unencrypted and with only the most rudimentary checks, to an outside SMTP server for forwarding or delivery? Um, reverse that. Steve was saying _work_ email touching _outside_ servers. In other words, company email shouldn't pass thru outside mail servers. This is actually a sound practice, if a bit paranoid, but I can understand the requirement. I might have plonked Steve, but don't misstate what he asked. Seth
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 how far do you think Well, the SMTP server will route it correctly anyway, that is what they do will fly? There are reasons other than technical to different servers. *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 handed, unencrypted and with only the most rudimentary checks, to an outside SMTP server for forwarding or delivery? Um, reverse that. Steve was saying _work_ email touching _outside_ servers. In other words, company email shouldn't pass thru outside mail servers. This is actually a sound practice, if a bit paranoid, but I can understand the requirement. I might have plonked Steve, but don't misstate what he asked. Except the policy should be 'through outside networks' if they're serious about it. (Although your local ISP probably couldn't care less what the contents of your mail are... if they have a different user that's been naughty, perhaps the feds are using their new toys to snoop email even if it doesn't touch the ISP's server.) -- Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor. Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day. Netscum, Bane of Elves.
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 how far do you think Well, the SMTP server will route it correctly anyway, that is what they do will fly? There are reasons other than technical to different servers. *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 handed, unencrypted and with only the most rudimentary checks, to an outside SMTP server for forwarding or delivery? Um, reverse that. Steve was saying _work_ email touching _outside_ servers. In other words, company email shouldn't pass thru outside mail servers. This is actually a sound practice, if a bit paranoid, but I can understand the requirement. My misunderstanding. To me, work email is email either to or from work. Even so, if they don't trust an ISP to recieve and forward mail, they have little reason to trust it to receive and forward packets. I might have plonked Steve, but don't misstate what he asked. Never my intention. John P. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mdt.net.au/~john Debian Linux admin support:technical services
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
-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 handed, unencrypted and with only the most rudimentary checks, to an outside SMTP server for forwarding or delivery? Yes. He is also aware that 99% of all business mail between employees aren't over the internet in general and set policy to reduce the number of steps outside. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5i iQA/AwUBOaV3aHpf7K2LbpnFEQItdQCfQ5cdIj1CcAAcMnrT1ap1TxsrzWQAniLP 1HLElVau3CQhIwmUkg8BFM5S =3DUC -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
-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 application to application is greatly reduced). OTOH you must agree that there is some point where breaking it down can get too far. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5i iQA/AwUBOaV4Dnpf7K2LbpnFEQIUkgCfcFQLWHW8ndjrqlCxPoEBfcJ1bmcAn2vc ZXfcUwuQAVhfocp/JxBp91VZ =ozcg -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 irrelevant. Each pop3 mailbox had its own (optional) procmailrc. I fail to see how you cannot understand that my position of having to filter from a single source is a problem by pointing out... I can filter! B:The fireswamp? We'll never survive! W:You only say that because no one ever has. 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. And that every time you add yourself to a mailing list you'd have to add that mailing list to the regular expressions in order to get that mail into the appropriate folder. Is that what you think? It's not true. Here is a tiny fetchmail configuration that uses procmail, but does not even require a procmail configuration file, and therefore has no regular expressions, much less any to modify, to put mail from separate mail accounts into separate folders on your local machine. Mail from separate accounts *never* gets merged into a single source from which it needs to be filtered. .fetchmailrc -- poll $MAILHOST proto pop3 mda procmail DEFAULT=$HOME/Mail/$MAILHOST -- Invoke it as MAILHOST=work fetchmail and it will get your mail from the server work and put it into the file (folder) called work. Invoke it as MAILHOST=friend fetchmail and it will put it into a file called friend. As long as the mail comes from a particular server, it will go into a particular folder. Point your mail client at the resultant folders. You also need to add user and password info to .fetchmailrc or have a .netrc file (better). Extensions to allow the folder to have a different name than the mail server, and to invoke fetchmail just once for all your mail servers, are obvious. The above assumes one account per mail server, but that is not hard to relax, either. Beyond this, yes, your mail clients need to go beyond treating the files as separate folders of a single account to treating them as the inboxes of separate mail accounts, but I agree with you that that is a problem of the mail clients. As others have pointed out, you can configure existing mail clients to send it out via the correct server with hooks attached to the folders. That sounds darn close to what you want. We are all looking forward to trying out the mail client you build that does exactly what you want - I would like the Emacs version :-) I don't understand why you object to your mail client invoking an instance of, say, sendmail in order to contact the appropriate outgoing server for the particular message you are sending. Some process has to contact that server using SMTP, why build SMTP into a mail client when there is already an existing program that does that? -- Neil L. Roeth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 filter from a single source. Completely stupid. Huh? From a single source? No, unless you say one fetchmail process is a single source. If you want to run 30 invocations of fetchmail for no reason, I guess you could, but I fail to see why one single source is relevant. 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) procmailrc. 3) Procmail, which will easily organize your email into whatever structure you see fit, with plenty of folders and subfolders for... Well, you need a local delivery agent. I guess you could use 'cat', but since it doesn't handle file locking, it would be silly. No, you don't. Later in your message you get pissy that I don't learn the tools yet here you are telling me I need an MDA when Exim does that just fine? Oy. You mean exim doesn't have an MDA? How does mail get into your mailbox? Or do you mean exim comes with its own MDA. There is a HUGE difference. Only because you insist on being difficult. It amazes me that in the three years I've seen you whining about how all mail clients are unworthy of you, you haven't actually bothered to figure out how to adapt them to your needs. *I* am being difficult? I find it amazing that I have a set of tools that works perfectly on other platforms yet when I come here and am told to do everything the hardest way possible that *I* am the one being difficult! Come off it, mail, as it stands, is the one being difficult! No, the hardest way for you, at best. I find it quite easy to deal with, and it works great for an insane amount of mail. How insane? You do the math: [mailhost:~] 9:38:34pm 53 % head /var/mail/b/e/bem/inbox | grep X-IMAP X-IMAP: 0943303633 419781 The above configuration works just fine for dealing with multiple identities and settings. No, it does /NOT/. It amazes me than in the three years you've been reading me you still don't get it and STILL cannot come up with an acceptable answer. Yes it does. Are you telling me that my mail configuration doesn't work? How the hell did I get this mail? Am I just talking to the wall? (I may as well, be, but that's a different matter.) Source speaks, not screen shots. Point was that people are stating they don't know what I want when I am providing functional examples. You have done no such thing. Look at this picture! is hardly a functional example. It's not even a bloody mockup. I'm -not- about to defile a system and pay for Windows to see what -you- want in a mail client. If you don't like the way any mail client works, take the source and make it work the way you want. -That- is what GNU/Linux is about. No, that is /PART/ of what it is about. That is not /ALL/ that it is about. As stated a lot of people don't code. You have a VERY elitist attitude when it is simply, Do it the hard way or fuck you, learn to code. Well, quite frankly, whiney sods saying Write code my way or I will continue to use Windows for mail! aren't likely to make me care. -You- have a very arrogant attitude, insisting that YOUR way is right and fuck you if you don't agree with me! Ever considered that since you've managed to baffle half the people you whine at about your requirements, that your presentation is, um, lacking or, perhaps more precisely, incoherent? Why not sit down and write how you want mail to work. Do it in more than four paragraphs, and define your terms: many are loaded. (What, precisely, is a 'mailbox'? How does it differ from a 'mail folder'? What is its relation to an email address?) For many people, we have a multitude of mailboxes and addresses, yet we are able to make mail work just fine... even if you tell us we're imagining it. -- Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor. Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day. Netscum, Bane of Elves.
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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) procmailrc. I fail to see how you cannot understand that my position of having to filter from a single source is a problem by pointing out... I can filter! You mean exim doesn't have an MDA? How does mail get into your mailbox? Or do you mean exim comes with its own MDA. There is a HUGE difference. Exim /IS/ an MDA. It doesn't come with an MDA, it fills that role. How insane? You do the math: That doesn't tell me jack nor does it state how many accounts you have. I have stated quite a but that the system, as proposed, is fine for a /single/ account but breaks down after that. Yes it does. Are you telling me that my mail configuration doesn't work? How the hell did I get this mail? Am I just talking to the wall? (I may as well, be, but that's a different matter.) You have not solved simple issues like sending out the proper SMTP server, for example. /YOUR/ configuration is, IMHO, substandard to mine. It requires /LESS/. You have done no such thing. Look at this picture! is hardly a functional example. It's not even a bloody mockup. I'm -not- about to defile a system and pay for Windows to see what -you- want in a mail client. Oh jeez. C'mon, Brian. You've said you've been following me on this issue for three years and you are now stating that I have not once in that time ever described what was needed and why the current system fails? Get real! I have drawn charts showing problems, I have described it in detail, and if you looked at the bloody picture you'd understand what I was getting at because it is evident in that picture! Stop being willfully ignorant! Well, quite frankly, whiney sods saying Write code my way or I will continue to use Windows for mail! aren't likely to make me care. -You- have a very arrogant attitude, insisting that YOUR way is right and fuck you if you don't agree with me! I have not insisted. I have explained the differences, why the proposed system fails, what the current alternatives are, why certain parts do and do not work. That is more than just insisting and being difficult. For many people, we have a multitude of mailboxes and addresses, yet we are able to make mail work just fine... even if you tell us we're imagining it. Right, but you're doing it in a manner which can cause problems outside the technical ones, down the line. As I said, I have written volumes on this manner in many different forums going so far as to even make ASCII diagrams of the data flow, offer example programs (Don't want to run Windows, borrow a friend's system for 1/2 hour. Rumor has it that Windows is pretty easy to find on people's machines), places to find the information and even after all of that, when it is plain as day to most people that I talk to, you still want /more/? -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+-
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 headers. Now take it a step further, what do you do on the MUA (not mail client) side to address that? Well, that certainly indicates one reason why I'm having difficulty coming to grips with your requirement; we have a problem over terminology. I differentiate between MUAs, MDAs, and MTAs; examples are: MUA: mutt MDA: procmail MTA: exim Obviously, you mean something different to MUA to me (and, perhaps, others); what, in your view is an MUA if not a mail client? John P. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mdt.net.au/~john Debian Linux admin support:technical services
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 to see that happening in any manner I found acceptable. You keep forgetting the MUA aspect where there is no concept of separate accounts. Exim /IS/ an MDA. It doesn't come with an MDA, it fills that role. No. Exim is an MTA. *sigh* Are you really that stupid, Brian? I mean, really? Read that sentence again. Did I say it wasn't an MTA? No. What did I say? I don't think it is that hard. I said it is an MDA, that it fills that role. If you actually pulled your head out of your butt long enough to read the documentation of Exim you would find that a separate MDA is /not/ needed with Exim because, this may sound like deja vu, it fills the role of an MDA. Put it another way it provides filters (in the .forward file) for people to dictate how they want their mail delivered in a similar manner to procmail. It doesn't need procmail. It doesn't need any separate MDA. IE, it is an MTA and an MDA which is entirely consistant with what I said above and what I have stated in the past. If you wish to refute this claim, please provide your reasonings. I'm eager to understand why you think it doesn't fill the MDA role. Again. the terms are loaded. I have -no- accounts. (Accounts are for, well, accounting, and I don't pay for them.) I have an infinite number of email addresses, of which maybe a dozen or two I use regularly. Don't play ignorant with me. This is getting tiring. Fine, if accounts are for accounting and you pay for all accounts then why do you have a root accounts on your box? And a nobody account. Oh, I guess that means you /ARE/ familiar with the term accounts separate of the billing processes of a business. Fine. A mail account, to me, is a separate set of folders, filters, and settings indpenedant of any other mail account. In fact, I have stated that several times. I fail to see how it is a loaded term when I have explained it numerous times. 'proper'? Um, why is my SMTP server not proper? Should I change smtp servers based on 'From:'? Goodness, that would be silly -- why on earth would I want to, when this machine is quite capable of handling mail itself. Because the assumption is that your machine can handle mail at all. It should not be a requirement to set up a local SMTP server to handle mail on a workstation. The MTA would be using a smart host setup. IE, blidnly forwarding all mail to another SMTP server. Well, why not have the client send to that server. That /is/ why it is client/server and why most clients can connect to multiple servers. Furthermore, I never said based on the From: line, that is the personalities paradigm which is flawed. Based on which mail account you're in. To use your logic why would I want my work mail to touch my SMTP server when my client is perfectly capable of connecting the work server and sending mail through it. Or, more to the point, the reverse. Why should I put personal mail through the work server when my client can contact my home server and have the mail go out from there. Ah, that brings up something you didn't think about, did it? Pushing home mail through work creates legal problems, doesn't it? Yes, it does, as some businesses have problems with non-work related mail travelling through their servers. Esp. at my work where there are corporate and public servers to choose from. I have to have control, at the mail account level, as described above, which SMTP server to it for a variety of legal and security reasons. Yes, your machine is technically capable of handling the mail but is it legally proper or the proper choice for security? It may be, for you. It often is not for me which is why stuffing all mail under a single mail account and splitting out on personalities (Eudora/Lookout! term and basically what mutt does) is not an option. Having separate local accounts for remote mailboxes is also absurd since that /should/ be handled internally to the client. IE, why should I create 10 local accounts and have to log in 10 times when it absolutely is not needed? Oh jeez. C'mon, Brian. You've said you've been following me on this issue for three years and you are now stating that I have not once in that time ever described what was needed and why the current system fails? Get real! I have drawn charts showing problems, I have described it in detail, and if you looked at the bloody picture you'd understand what I was getting at because it is evident in that picture! Stop being willfully ignorant! You haven't. We went around in circles on lusenet before about this. Uhm, I /have/. I distictly remember
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 terminology. For instance, your examples below have a flaw in them. I differentiate between MUAs, MDAs, and MTAs; examples are: MUA: mutt MDA: procmail MTA: exim MTA: Exim. Exim does not need an MDA as it fills that role as well. So it could be something like this: MUA: mutt MDA/MTA: exim Obviously, you mean something different to MUA to me (and, perhaps, others); what, in your view is an MUA if not a mail client? 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, for the most part, an HTTP client. We have the HTTP server and the HTTP client talking to one another directly. We don't have an HTTP transport agent to get the data to the HTTP user agent. Again, example, it is flawed, but it gets the basic point across. A mail client does most, if not all, of the tasks defined as an MUA and most, of not all, of the tasks of an MDA with some minor tasks relegated to an MTA. Let me try to explain. MUA: Program to manipulate the mail databases, filter through them, display them and perform functions upon them as well as limited support functions to help in that main task. IE, reading, replying, deleting, moving messages around are all the main task and the address book, for example, would be a support function. Editing text, spell checking, contact lists, etc are all separate applications and, to me, are not part of the MUA. Do you feel this adiquately describes the majority of functions of mutt? MDA: Program to deliver mail to the local system in accordance with any directives given. This includes any file locking specific to the file system, filtering that is requested from the user(s) as well as system administrator(s) and so on. Exim's MDA portion and procmail? MTA: Program to deliver mail to external sources as well as accept mail from external sources for later redistribution to either the local system or another, external system. Exim's MTA section, Sendmail? Now, let's look at what the mail clients, not MUAs, do. We'll keep it to a single mail account for simplicity and to set aside the whole issue of how to handle multiple mail accounts. A mail account, as I described to Brian earlier, is a collection of folders, filters and settings that are independant of other mail accounts. A mail client attaches to a remote server and pulls the mail down. This is, technicaly, MTA. Once it has the mail it applies a series of filters to it (MDA) and stores it in local folders (MDA). There it allows the user to read, reply to, move and delete those messages (MUA) as well as other support functions (MUA). When they send a message out the client once again connects to a remote server and hands off the mail for delivery (MTA). Now, adding multiple mail accounts back in I feel that a mail client should be able to do that for each mail account with each having its own set of incoming and outgoing servers, filters, folders, settings and so on. This means a single instance keeps the sent mail separate, uses different SMTP servers dependant on mail account (which is independant of mail addresses and local accounts), to the point where a mail account can and should be able to be moved from one machine or local account (local = user, to clarify) without problem. That is different than the personalities paradigm which does not separate out sent mail, use separate SMTP servers and otherwise does not keep the incoming mail separate as the default. Anyway, getting back to the question(s) about MUA/MDA/MTA and mail client. I feel there is a difference between the MUA and a mail client. I do not see a problem with a mail client incorporating portions of other roles because they logically fit together in certain circumstances. The MUA/MDA/MTA divisions were made in the day when there were multiple (dozens to thousands) of people on a single machine and a single mail account as associated with a single local user account. I'm going to assume that anyone still interested in this thread knows why that is the case. If not there is good reading in the bat book on the subject. However, that is not the only case today. I feel that the MTA/MDA/MUA division is overkill for a single person on a single box. There is no need to set up an MTA in that case. It will be running in smarthost mode forwarding all mail to another SMTP server to do the actual delivery. I am certainly not advocating a complete MTA be programmed into a
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 your machine is anything but what you asked for. I fail to see that happening in any manner I found acceptable. You keep forgetting the MUA aspect where there is no concept of separate accounts. Huh? You're the one that keeps bringing up 'accounts'. I keep asking what the concept of an 'account' has to do with mailboxes. Again, Steve, I have accounts on machines with no mailboxes. I have mailboxes on machines with no accounts. I have MULTIPLE mailboxes on machines with a single account. You do NOT read from a pop3 'account', you read from a pop3 MAILBOX. Exim /IS/ an MDA. It doesn't come with an MDA, it fills that role. No. Exim is an MTA. *sigh* Are you really that stupid, Brian? I mean, really? Hell, I'm smart enough to a) spot private replies and reply to them privately. *Hint* my last mail to you was private. And b) I'm smart enough to only send each mail once, instead of mailing it once as a private reply and then sending the exact same thing to a list. Heck, I'm even smart enough to NOT cc people on list mail unless they've requested it. Howzabout you Steve? If you wish to refute this claim, please provide your reasonings. I'm eager to understand why you think it doesn't fill the MDA role. Filtering has NOTHING to do with is this an MTA. I have body filters in sendmail. I may play with them in postfix Does that make sendmail an MDA? Or postfix? No. Both DO come with MDA's though (mail.local or just plain local, respectively). So what makes an MDA an MDA? Hint it's the D. Part of the reason none of what you're saying makes sense is because you insist on redefining terms to suit your own ends. What seperates 'cat' from an MDA? cat doesn't know about dotlocks or flock() or any of the other tricks expected of an MDA. That's it. Again. the terms are loaded. I have -no- accounts. (Accounts are for, well, accounting, and I don't pay for them.) I have an infinite number of email addresses, of which maybe a dozen or two I use regularly. Don't play ignorant with me. This is getting tiring. Fine, if accounts are for accounting and you pay for all accounts then why do you have a root accounts on your box? And a nobody account. Oh, I guess that means you /ARE/ familiar with the term accounts separate of the billing processes of a business. And seperate from the concept of mailboxes. Why does root not have a mailbox? Nor nobody? In fact, of course, the reason for a seperate root account IS for accounting. Go look up words like 'accountability'. Fine. A mail account, to me, is a separate set of folders, filters, and settings indpenedant of any other mail account. In fact, I have stated that several times. I fail to see how it is a loaded term when I have explained it numerous times. Because 'settings' is a client issue. Filters can be applied at many stages (some long before the MDA even gets a chance to see it). Heck, my best filters are well out of the range of any mail client unless it contains a web browser, since their configuration is on a web page. 'proper'? Um, why is my SMTP server not proper? Should I change smtp servers based on 'From:'? Goodness, that would be silly -- why on earth would I want to, when this machine is quite capable of handling mail itself. Because the assumption is that your machine can handle mail at all. It should not be a requirement to set up a local SMTP server to handle mail on a workstation. The MTA would be using a smart host setup. IE, blidnly forwarding all mail to another SMTP server. Well, why not have the client send to that server. That /is/ why it is client/server and why most clients can connect to multiple servers. Because this 'workstation' also happens to be a server? Why forward it to another machine? (Of course, I -could- if I wanted to, but that would be silly.) Uhm, I /have/. I distictly remember posting to usenet ASCII graphs of the differences to COLM. Problem is Deja is no longer keeping comprehensive archives and it is no longer there. [*] Score: - %Expires: Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] %Score created by slrn on Wed Jul 15 10:39:39 1998 An honored spot. I highly doubt that everyone is as stupid as you think they are. Given that you're claiming to have followed my discussions on this topic across different venues and say that I haven't done what I know I have I'm more likely to believe people are stupid than you might think. Esp. when people come in at the middle and propose something I have shot down five times already, explaining why, in detail, each time. Yes, I
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 machines with no accounts. I have MULTIPLE mailboxes on machines with a single account. You do NOT read from a pop3 'account', you read from a pop3 MAILBOX. And? A mail account can have sources from multuple mailboxes and a user account can have multiple mail accounts. Hell, I'm smart enough to a) spot private replies and reply to them privately. *Hint* my last mail to you was private. Hint, I figured it would have been to the list if I hadn't fat fingered my reply. And b) I'm smart enough to only send each mail once, instead of mailing it once as a private reply and then sending the exact same thing to a list. Well, considering I have on every other message, one might reasonable surmise it was a mistake. Heck, I'm even smart enough to NOT cc people on list mail unless they've requested it. Howzabout you Steve? Sorry, I'm not a machine like you that never, ever, EVER makes a mistake. What seperates 'cat' from an MDA? cat doesn't know about dotlocks or flock() or any of the other tricks expected of an MDA. That's it. Interesting all, really. None of which states that Exim doesn't fill the MDA role. I still await your points addressing that. In fact, of course, the reason for a seperate root account IS for accounting. Go look up words like 'accountability'. Oh, gee, and you were talking about my loaded words. What do most people think of when you say accounting? Especially in or near a sentence with pay. Because this 'workstation' also happens to be a server? Why forward it to another machine? Just because you don't have a reason and find it silly does not mean there isn't a reason for it or that other people don't have those needs. (Of course, I -could- if I wanted to, but that would be silly.) Maybe in your situation. Silly in all situations? [*] Score: - %Expires: Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] %Score created by slrn on Wed Jul 15 10:39:39 1998 An honored spot. Really? Wonder if you have [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] as well. Yes, I should remember the words of WSB: Never proffer sympathy to the mentally ill, for theirs is a bottomless pit. (From Words of Advice to Young People). You know, people who stoutly refuse that there is a problem when there so clearly is are often considered mentally ill. There is a problem in this scheme, Brian, no matter what your never-make-a-mistake self might think. I'll take your advice and consider you mentally ill from now on and act accordingly. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+-
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 inbox,outbox,etc. (its ok to call these folders) for each of the above non-folders. Does that about sum it up? Yes, completely separate mail accounts. That is exactly it. My apologies if I was too vague in my descriptions. 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 and Trash, plus a local folder structure in case you want that.
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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, you have two choices. Use separate tasks for each mail account, or use one task for all accounts and perform a process that could be labeled filtering. Fetchmail offers both options. If 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. [snip] 3) Procmail, which will easily organize your email into whatever structure you see fit, with plenty of folders and subfolders for... ...also does filtering, no need for procmail. True, procmail is in many ways redundant here, but it offers much more flexibility than any other option I've seen, and it's easy to configure quickly. 4) Mutt, which can either be set up with an bunch of folder-hook commands to change your settings based on which account's email you are looking at, or with a different muttrc for each account and run with mutt -M ~/.muttrc-account, depending on how you want to use it. Use aliases to keep the command lines easy to remember and type. A bunch of folder hook commands or have to use a separate instance completely. So each time I sign up for a new mailing list on my work account, for example, I need to: Add a new filter to my work account set of filters. Only if you want it in a subfolder in your work account mail directory. I've seen no option on any client that would avoid this step. Add a folder definition into Mutt just to keep it straight. What do you mean a Folder definition? Provided you use subdirectories sanely, you can use one set of folder-hooks for an entire accounts worth of subfolders, and only need to add one if you need something special for a specific subfolder. Still send mail out my home SMTP server. Which can then route the mail to the appropriate mail server. This is how SMTP was designed to work. Alternately: folder-hook pattern sendmail alternate send command. You just put in one of those lines for each separate account. The only downside I see with the above is it's a bear to configure initially. It should be a SMOP to write a script or a GUI druid to automate such configurations. It is a bear to configure every time something changes, Not really, most changes should just work; others, change a line or two and you're done. The only change that will be a bear is adding, removing or moving an entire account. If those change often, work on an automation script, shouldn't be hard. it doesn't keep it all separate, COMPLETELY SEPARATE. That is unacceptable. The mailboxes are separate, the outgoing mail is separate, the headers are separate; hell, even the user interface can be separaete if you want to be perverse about it. What more do you want to separate? If this isn't enough power for you, what more do you want? There's probably a solution, but you have to be specific as to your needs. If you can't express what you want, Too bad is all that can really be said without you paying someone. I have been specific. I have even given examples! PMMail and The Bat! Screen shots alone for those two products speak volumes! I must have missed that. I will look for those packages. Best of Luck, -Gleef
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 cost money I'm not willing to spend on this, and; * neither appears to support IMAP, so I'd have to completly redo how I manage mail just to evaluate the products; From what I can see from the websites, however: * Both use filters heavily, so I am officially confused as to what your problem with filtering is * PMMail in particular shows mailboxes organized exactly the way I was suggesting * Both look easier to configure than what I was suggesting * Both look less powerful and feature-rich than what I was suggesting Of course, your mileage may vary. -Gleef
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 and Trash, plus a local folder structure in case you want that. Close, but not perfect. They insist on sending everything out a single SMTP server. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+-
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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, PMMail has a 45-day trial period. One need not spend money to try them out. You can say that of, oh, Eudroa Pro, but not those two. * neither appears to support IMAP, so I'd have to completly redo how I manage mail just to evaluate the products; PMMail does not, TB! does. However, given that there hasn't been a decent client for IMAP yet that isn't much of a concern nor does that prevent you from downloading them and playing with them in a sandbox account to see how they do things. * Both use filters heavily, so I am officially confused as to what your problem with filtering is Notice that filtering comes after the separation of the accounts, not as part of the process of separating the accounts. Simply stated, if you didn't filter the mail the incoming mail on each account would be separate as the default behavior instead of jumbled together. Also all outgoing mail is kept separate as the default. All settings are separate as a default. * PMMail in particular shows mailboxes organized exactly the way I was suggesting But does that as default instead of having to be arm-twisted into it. Hmm, and they decided to change the home page on me. Hate it when they do that. * Both look easier to configure than what I was suggesting O-bing. * Both look less powerful and feature-rich than what I was suggesting I don't see it that way. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+-
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 the same time. Add a new filter to my work account set of filters. Only if you want it in a subfolder in your work account mail directory. I've seen no option on any client that would avoid this step. Really? How, then, will it get into the default work directory if I don't set up a filter? How will it be caught by my current set of filters if it already isn't there? Add a folder definition into Mutt just to keep it straight. What do you mean a Folder definition? Provided you use subdirectories sanely, you can use one set of folder-hooks for an entire accounts worth of subfolders, and only need to add one if you need something special for a specific subfolder. True. This was written before I was made aware of that feature of mutt. Let's just say I consider one of the many failings of mutt that many of the hey, cool! features are impossible to find by playing with the product which is the exact opposite of my experience with other similar products. Still send mail out my home SMTP server. 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 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 correctly anyway, that is what they do will fly? There are reasons other than technical to different servers. Alternately: folder-hook pattern sendmail alternate send command. You just put in one of those lines for each separate account. I fail to see how this would have mutt send mail to my corporate SMTP server which is over the net. Are you suggesting I now write a small wrapper to do the dumb forwarding over the network? Not beyond my capabilities by any means but foolish to require most people to do that for such a simple task. It is a bear to configure every time something changes, Not really, most changes should just work; others, change a line or two and you're done. The only change that will be a bear is adding, removing or moving an entire account. If those change often, work on an automation script, shouldn't be hard. This is unacceptable. Changes in 2-3 different locations and if you want to do it often, script it on your own. I'm sorry but any heavily used process should already have an interface to change it easily or have sane defaults. Neither of which are present here. it doesn't keep it all separate, COMPLETELY SEPARATE. That is unacceptable. The mailboxes are separate, the outgoing mail is separate, the headers are separate; hell, even the user interface can be separaete if you want to be perverse about it. What more do you want to separate? Only after massive arm-twisting, a mind boggling complex configuration and it still has problems with separate SMTP servers and other such things. Meanwhile what I am used to does all of that as the default course. It is separate. You want to mix it up, forward from one account to the other but until you do it doesn't mix it up for you because each account is, as it should be, completely separate. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+-
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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, for the most part, an HTTP client. We have the HTTP server and the HTTP client talking to one another directly. We don't have an HTTP transport agent to get the data to the HTTP user agent. Again, example, it is flawed, but it gets the basic point across. huge snip It may interest you to know that there are many different ways to skin a cat. Clearly none of the ways currently available suit you 100% (or even 60%). However, it may interest you to know that in general, the modularization and breakdown of processes into many separate methods is generally thought to be A Good Thing. It is because of this that we have (for example) Micro Kernels. You may be further interested to know that under RISC OS, the entire web-browsing mechanics are as broken down as email is under Linux - you literally do have to have around 3-4 different processes running, which all communicate with each other to get the job done. 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 application to application is greatly reduced). I am far happier using a console mode MUA under Linux than I am using Outlook Express because I have far more 'nitty-gritty' control over what is going on. I may remind you that Linux is first and foremost a server OS. It is also a programmer's OS. As such, people who are not prepared to while away hundreds of hours reading man pages and docs and do not have an almost fundamental understanding of the OS are not going to find Linux a rewarding experience. Therefore, the attitude is, and will remain to be for some time, 'if it doesn't do what you want, make it do it yourself'. Matthew
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 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 correctly anyway, that is what they do will fly? There are reasons other than technical to different servers. *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 handed, unencrypted and with only the most rudimentary checks, to an outside SMTP server for forwarding or delivery? John P. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mdt.net.au/~john Debian Linux admin support:technical services
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 get any sane results I /MUST/ mix the mail up. huh? .fetchmailrc can have: [] user x is mark here [] user y is julie here to stick mail from into user account mark and into julie. Alternatively, if you don't want separate acounts for work / home, you can use an exim .forward file to filter and save your home stuff to a seperate mailbox file and mutt -f the file. Alternatively... I have never user fetchmailconf, but perhaps this is limiting you. .fetchmailrc is trivial to understand anyway... HTH, Mark.
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 to filter it all out /and/ have to tell the mail client to use x account in y situation but not z that is quite inelegant. I think it is you that has done something wrong in the setup. I have setup fetchmail on a machine to fetch mail for both users of that machine from the ISP. One of the users even got a different username on the local machine. No need to do filtering etc as you suggest. -- Preben Randhol - Ph. D student - http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, Isaac Asimov
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 don't want separate acounts for work / home, you can use an exim .forward file to filter and save your home stuff to a seperate mailbox file and mutt -f the file. Alternatively... I have already addressed this in this thread. IE, dumping all mail into a single account and then filtering out from there. This is not acceptable. Again, a hack to the extreme. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+-
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 got a different username on the local machine. No need to do filtering etc as you suggest. So if I have 5 remote accounts I need to have 5 local accounts. Am I the only one who thinks that is stupid? -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+-
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 then? I have setup fetchmail on a machine to fetch mail for both users of that machine from the ISP. One of the users even got a different username on the local machine. No need to do filtering etc as you suggest. So if I have 5 remote accounts I need to have 5 local accounts. Am I the only one who thinks that is stupid? I'm having a hard time understanding your problem. At one moment you say that you download all mail to one account and then filter the mail to the different accounts. In the next you suddenly want all your mail into one account. PLease make up your mind about what your problem is! What I consider a stupid solution is to have two different persons with seperate ISP accounts reading eachothers mail. That is why I have setup fetchmail to send the mail to each user. -- Preben Randhol - Ph. D student - http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, Isaac Asimov
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 local machine. This is a piss-poor hack. Alternatively, if you don't want separate acounts for work / home, you can use an exim .forward file to filter and save your home stuff to a seperate mailbox file and mutt -f the file. Alternatively... I have already addressed this in this thread. IE, dumping all mail into a single account and then filtering out from there. This is not acceptable. Again, a hack to the extreme. Perhaps it would help if you re-stated what it is you want, and explain why this isn't a part of the solution. Using an Exim .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. If you don't want all mail delivered to a single mailbox, and you don't want mail delivered to several mailboxes belonging to different mail users, and you don't want mail delivered to several mailboxes all belonging to the same user, what is it you *do* want? John P. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mdt.net.au/~john Debian Linux admin support:technical services
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 local machine. This is a piss-poor hack. Not if mark != julie. I was refering specifically to your statement Using fetchmail in the prescribed manner to get any sane results I /MUST/ mix the mail up. Alternatively, if you don't want separate acounts for work / home, you can use an exim .forward file to filter and save your home stuff to a seperate mailbox file and mutt -f the file. Alternatively... I have already addressed this in this thread. IE, dumping all mail into a single account and then filtering out from there. This is not acceptable. Again, a hack to the extreme. So, dumping the mail into separate accounts is a piss-poor hack. Dumping all mail into a single account and then filtering out from there is a hack to the extreme. The only alternative options I can see rely on the client fetching mail: i) firing up multiple instances of your mail client with different configuration files. ii) having one mail client with separate 'folders' for different accounts (not compatible with the local mail delivery system without extra work) Why would these be so much less hackish? It seems to be further from the unix paradigm to me. Have fun, Mark. [assuming that imap was not available to the original poster] ps. If anyone was after instructions on allowing multiple users to use one email account, look for stumpel.html at linux gazette. It's not ideal, but may be of use.
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 that you like. Too bad. On Tuesday, 22 August 2000 at 00:54, 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 local machine. This is a piss-poor hack. Alternatively, if you don't want separate acounts for work / home, you can use an exim .forward file to filter and save your home stuff to a seperate mailbox file and mutt -f the file. Alternatively... I have already addressed this in this thread. IE, dumping all mail into a single account and then filtering out from there. This is not acceptable. Again, a hack to the extreme. -- Don't make Godzilla mad! pgphjnwBjCXTu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 attitude there, Too bad. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+-
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 MUA (not mail client) side to address that? If you don't want all mail delivered to a single mailbox, and you don't want mail delivered to several mailboxes belonging to different mail users, and you don't want mail delivered to several mailboxes all belonging to the same user, what is it you *do* want? The notion of mail accounts separate from local real accounts and a mail client (not MUA) which can handle multiple mail accounts (not mail from accounts dumped into different folders) in a reasonable manner. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+-
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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. Does that about sum it up? On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Steve Lamb wrote: The notion of mail accounts separate from local real accounts and a mail client (not MUA) which can handle multiple mail accounts (not mail from accounts dumped into different folders) in a reasonable manner. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. -- I'm here to paint but I've forgotten my brush... You got beer? Mark Schiltz
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 sum it up? Yes, completely separate mail accounts. That is exactly it. My apologies if I was too vague in my descriptions. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+-
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 each of the above non-folders. Does that about sum it up? Yes, completely separate mail accounts. That is exactly it. I think the pronto MUA can do what you want. Have a look at http://www.muhri.net/pronto. In woody there is a debian package. Greetings, joachim
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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. Too bad. Great attitude there, Too bad. 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 whose mail it's looking at, potentially changing everything from the signature file to the mail server. How does the following sound: 1) Fetchmail, which will grab the mail from separate accounts, and stuff it through... 2) A MTA, any MTA. I use exim, which will happily stuff the mails through... 3) Procmail, which will easily organize your email into whatever structure you see fit, with plenty of folders and subfolders for... 4) Mutt, which can either be set up with an bunch of folder-hook commands to change your settings based on which account's email you are looking at, or with a different muttrc for each account and run with mutt -M ~/.muttrc-account, depending on how you want to use it. Use aliases to keep the command lines easy to remember and type. The only downside I see with the above is it's a bear to configure initially. It should be a SMOP to write a script or a GUI druid to automate such configurations. If this isn't enough power for you, what more do you want? There's probably a solution, but you have to be specific as to your needs. If you can't express what you want, Too bad is all that can really be said without you paying someone. -Gleef
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 whose mail it's looking at, potentially changing everything from the signature file to the mail server. How does the following sound: Of course your falling into the personailities mentality. 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. 2) A MTA, any MTA. I use exim, which will happily stuff the mails through... And, amazingly enough... 3) Procmail, which will easily organize your email into whatever structure you see fit, with plenty of folders and subfolders for... ...also does filtering, no need for procmail. 4) Mutt, which can either be set up with an bunch of folder-hook commands to change your settings based on which account's email you are looking at, or with a different muttrc for each account and run with mutt -M ~/.muttrc-account, depending on how you want to use it. Use aliases to keep the command lines easy to remember and type. A bunch of folder hook commands or have to use a separate instance completely. So each time I sign up for a new mailing list on my work account, for example, I need to: Add a new filter to my work account set of filters. Add a folder definition into Mutt just to keep it straight. Still send mail out my home SMTP server. Contrast: Nothing. The only downside I see with the above is it's a bear to configure initially. It should be a SMOP to write a script or a GUI druid to automate such configurations. It is a bear to configure every time something changes, it doesn't keep it all separate, COMPLETELY SEPARATE. That is unacceptable. If this isn't enough power for you, what more do you want? There's probably a solution, but you have to be specific as to your needs. If you can't express what you want, Too bad is all that can really be said without you paying someone. I have been specific. I have even given examples! PMMail and The Bat! Screen shots alone for those two products speak volumes! -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+-
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 understand this, and send outgoing mail appropriately for the account whose mail it's looking at, potentially changing everything from the signature file to the mail server. How does the following sound: Of course your falling into the personailities mentality. 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. poll mailserver with pop3: user fred pass noway mda /usr/bin/procmail -d %T .filters/filters-for-fred poll mail2 with pop3: user bob pass nothere mda /usr/bin/procmail -d %T .filters/filters-for-bob etc, etc, etc. Note that the filtering is done by fetchmail. If you don't want filters, then don't specify that portion of the command line. 2) A MTA, any MTA. I use exim, which will happily stuff the mails through... And, amazingly enough... 3) Procmail, which will easily organize your email into whatever structure you see fit, with plenty of folders and subfolders for... Well, you need a local delivery agent. I guess you could use 'cat', but since it doesn't handle file locking, it would be silly. ...also does filtering, no need for procmail. xfmail, as I recall, had okay filtering (or views) but I dislike the dump everything into one mailbox and sort it when reading concept. I like my debian-user thrown into a different mailbox so I can read it when I feel like it. 4) Mutt, which can either be set up with an bunch of folder-hook commands to change your settings based on which account's email you are looking at, or with a different muttrc for each account and run with mutt -M ~/.muttrc-account, depending on how you want to use it. Use aliases to keep the command lines easy to remember and type. A bunch of folder hook commands or have to use a separate instance completely. So each time I sign up for a new mailing list on my work account, for example, I need to: Add a new filter to my work account set of filters. Add a folder definition into Mutt just to keep it straight. Still send mail out my home SMTP server. No. You know you can set folder hooks based on path names? From my .muttrc: # first, set our global defaults folder-hook . 'source .mutt/standard-defaults' # now handle special mailboxes... folder-hook support 'source .mutt/support-defaults' folder-hook Lists 'source .mutt/list-defaults' folder-hook secure 'source .mutt/secure-defaults' folder-hook news-admin 'source .mutt/news-defaults' folder-hook '!' 'source .mutt/inbox-defaults' # override anything specified above (like colors for Tags and Flags) folder-hook . 'source .mutt/standard-defaults-override' All my mailing list mail goes into ~/Mail/Lists/list-name, which the lists-defaults handles for me. So sort mail for your 'foo.com' account into ~/Mail/foo/, mail for 'example.com' into ~/Mail/example/ and let the folder hooks do their thing when you change mailboxes. You can also have mutt auto-find its lists: mailboxes `echo ~/Mail/Lists/*` Contrast: Nothing. The only downside I see with the above is it's a bear to configure initially. It should be a SMOP to write a script or a GUI druid to automate such configurations. It is a bear to configure every time something changes, it doesn't keep it all separate, COMPLETELY SEPARATE. That is unacceptable. Only because you insist on being difficult. It amazes me that in the three years I've seen you whining about how all mail clients are unworthy of you, you haven't actually bothered to figure out how to adapt them to your needs. The above configuration works just fine for dealing with multiple identities and settings. If this isn't enough power for you, what more do you want? There's probably a solution, but you have to be specific as to your needs. If you can't express what you want, Too bad is all that can really be said without you paying someone. I have been specific. I have even given examples! PMMail and The Bat! Screen shots alone for those two products speak volumes! Source speaks, not screen shots. If you don't like the way any mail client works, take the source and make it work the way you want. -That- is what GNU/Linux is about. -- Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor. Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day. Netscum, Bane of
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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) Procmail, which will easily organize your email into whatever structure you see fit, with plenty of folders and subfolders for... Well, you need a local delivery agent. I guess you could use 'cat', but since it doesn't handle file locking, it would be silly. No, you don't. Later in your message you get pissy that I don't learn the tools yet here you are telling me I need an MDA when Exim does that just fine? Oy. Only because you insist on being difficult. It amazes me that in the three years I've seen you whining about how all mail clients are unworthy of you, you haven't actually bothered to figure out how to adapt them to your needs. *I* am being difficult? I find it amazing that I have a set of tools that works perfectly on other platforms yet when I come here and am told to do everything the hardest way possible that *I* am the one being difficult! Come off it, mail, as it stands, is the one being difficult! The above configuration works just fine for dealing with multiple identities and settings. No, it does /NOT/. It amazes me than in the three years you've been reading me you still don't get it and STILL cannot come up with an acceptable answer. Source speaks, not screen shots. Point was that people are stating they don't know what I want when I am providing functional examples. If you don't like the way any mail client works, take the source and make it work the way you want. -That- is what GNU/Linux is about. No, that is /PART/ of what it is about. That is not /ALL/ that it is about. As stated a lot of people don't code. You have a VERY elitist attitude when it is simply, Do it the hard way or fuck you, learn to code. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+-
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
-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 connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5i iQA/AwUBOaFRT3pf7K2LbpnFEQKKDACg1mYu4PJX/unagG6ygGtHQGKDxgoAn1Rr d9TyFMiy1P4x1VAKX0TBTmS+ =vjiG -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
-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 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 out /and/ have to tell the mail client to use x account in y situation but not z that is quite inelegant. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5i iQA/AwUBOaFS7Xpf7K2LbpnFEQKiXgCdH69WZimb3Xs9R1D7KxJc7T7jwyYAoKyy IDdi4LTPs0uQFmlapNgTd0HI =BNDI -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 the typical guy and have 5+ mail addresses. --Mike Steve Lamb wrote: -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 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 out /and/ have to tell the mail client to use x account in y situation but not z that is quite inelegant. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5i iQA/AwUBOaFS7Xpf7K2LbpnFEQKiXgCdH69WZimb3Xs9R1D7KxJc7T7jwyYAoKyy IDdi4LTPs0uQFmlapNgTd0HI =BNDI -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
-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 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 get any sane results I /MUST/ mix the mail up. There simply is not a client for Linux which keeps accounts separate while allowing people to access multiple accounts at once. Absurd. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5i iQA/AwUBOaFr2npf7K2LbpnFEQIwrgCfbEOnReoWh4MUMAw33mpaKOuEUpwAoPop YDq0OfAGkmHUTG2iPXXSzcnw =Oq81 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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 get any sane results I /MUST/ mix the mail up. There simply is not a client for Linux which keeps accounts separate while allowing people to access multiple accounts at once. Absurd. I strongly suspect that Gnus can do what you want, but I've not actually tried. It certainly supports multiple servers and folders and can conditionally set headers based upon various criteria. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ pgpzjqhdk31Vb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Monday, August 21, 2000, 11:11:42 AM, Mark wrote: I strongly suspect that Gnus can do what you want, but I've not actually tried. It certainly supports multiple servers and folders and can conditionally set headers based upon various criteria. Actually, I will have to concede that. I do believe it does. However, I don't use EMACS so gnus is right out /and/ from what I've seen of it in action (a coworker uses it) I'm not sure I'd be too keen on it. If it did do it I'd love to see the actual mail reading removed from the editor. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5i iQA/AwUBOaF2dnpf7K2LbpnFEQLMfACg0qMtKlLFBed+uaraLVP3PKzntycAn3V+ sJwCxrVo/ZsVTyCNQWV//c7f =kCct -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 11:35:29AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: Monday, August 21, 2000, 11:11:42 AM, Mark wrote: I strongly suspect that Gnus can do what you want, but I've not actually tried. It certainly supports multiple servers and folders and can conditionally set headers based upon various criteria. Actually, I will have to concede that. I do believe it does. However, I don't use EMACS so gnus is right out /and/ from what I've seen of it in action (a coworker uses it) I'm not sure I'd be too keen on it. If it did do it I'd love to see the actual mail reading removed from the editor. apt-get gnus -- Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of Gestalt don't you understand? Debian GNU/Linux rocks! http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0 pgp4Fs0yy1d87.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
Steve Lamb wrote: -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 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 get any sane results I /MUST/ mix the mail up. There simply is not a client for Linux which keeps accounts separate while allowing people to access multiple accounts at once. Absurd. Wrong. mutt can do that just fine. -- Mike Werner KA8YSD | He that is slow to believe anything and | everything is of great understanding, '91 GS500E| for belief in one false principle is the Morgantown WV | beginning of all unwisdom.
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Monday, August 21, 2000, 1:42:58 PM, Mike wrote: Wrong. mutt can do that just fine. Don't even try to kid me on that aspect ok? The day mutt can send mail out my work SMTP from home (yes, that level of separation) is the day I'll concede. Right now Mutt is most certainly not up to the task except in the most archaic of senses. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5i iQA/AwUBOaGYgHpf7K2LbpnFEQI2uACePbqh2BoUreICQk9gZptfMDPwJdgAoIgq 8LAQdPDPsMD/NwsBacZmmW+0 =guOa -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
Steve Lamb wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Monday, August 21, 2000, 1:42:58 PM, Mike wrote: Wrong. mutt can do that just fine. Don't even try to kid me on that aspect ok? The day mutt can send mail out my work SMTP from home (yes, that level of separation) is the day I'll concede. Right now Mutt is most certainly not up to the task except in the most archaic of senses. Oh, you meant actually send it out through different servers? I thought you were just meaning the message addressing - i.e. what From: line is used. Seems I misunderstood exactly what you meant. -- Mike Werner KA8YSD | He that is slow to believe anything and | everything is of great understanding, '91 GS500E| for belief in one false principle is the Morgantown WV | beginning of all unwisdom.
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:01:38PM -0400, Mike Werner wrote: Steve Lamb wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Monday, August 21, 2000, 1:42:58 PM, Mike wrote: Wrong. mutt can do that just fine. Don't even try to kid me on that aspect ok? The day mutt can send mail out my work SMTP from home (yes, that level of separation) is the day I'll concede. Right now Mutt is most certainly not up to the task except in the most archaic of senses. Oh, you meant actually send it out through different servers? I thought you were just meaning the message addressing - i.e. what From: line is used. Seems I misunderstood exactly what you meant. Considering that mutt doesn't do SMTP with anything, Steve's demand probably will never happen. (Though there are certainly ways to do it, the SMTP configuration ain't part of Mutt.) -- Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor. Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day. Netscum, Bane of Elves.
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Monday, August 21, 2000, 2:01:38 PM, Mike wrote: Oh, you meant actually send it out through different servers? I thought you were just meaning the message addressing - i.e. what From: line is used. Seems I misunderstood exactly what you meant. Gah, sorry for the tone. This might not be what the original author intended so don't associate me with him. However, this is what I see as a failing. Complete mail account separation. Different incoming and outgoing servers, different preferences, different folders, different filters, all down the line. The only common theme should be, IMHO, the interface. The basic question is, of course, why should one have access to different accounts in a single application? In fact, it has been asked and answered flippantly. Let me give a better answer. On my local machine I have, say, the account grey. At work I have slamb3. On my friend's machine I have morpheus. The latter two do not have mappings into the local machine nor should they. They also should not be forced into the local machine's account since they are separate accounts. I may or may not have access to shells on those machines but I /do/ have acccess to POP and SMTP. It seems logical, to me, that a client (not MUA, I now, after a few years, regard the two as different entities) should be able to keep those account separate internally when needed. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5i iQA/AwUBOaGdJXpf7K2LbpnFEQLAXQCfdCddQfntdjTOPUlOsggqOa2I2h4An0f0 zlsUttRQiOWV37SeG7K5bXTH =ZTS3 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Monday, August 21, 2000, 2:14:00 PM, brian wrote: Considering that mutt doesn't do SMTP with anything, Steve's demand probably will never happen. (Though there are certainly ways to do it, the SMTP configuration ain't part of Mutt.) Right. To be honest I use mutt and like it for what it is. I just don't feel it fits what the original author of this thread wanted nor what I look for in a client. If I didn't have needs for a variety of multiple accounts I would use mutt with abandon. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5i iQA/AwUBOaGddXpf7K2LbpnFEQIevQCg3ZLIfbyKHDSbaY3avb1Cq4NrLrsAn1ZB AM1cqPV+HpD48Yh7LIF/h2Ax =rJDi -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Monday, August 21, 2000, 12:44:11 PM, kmself wrote: If it did do it I'd love to see the actual mail reading removed from the editor. apt-get gnus Package: gnus Priority: optional Section: news Installed-Size: 4188 Maintainer: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Architecture: all Version: 5.8.3-9 Provides: news-reader Depends: emacs20 | xemacs20 | xemacs21, fileutils (= 4.0) ^ Like I said, if it did that I'd love to see the actual mail reading removed from the editor. Clearly this is not the case so I fail to see what you were getting at. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5i iQA/AwUBOaGu73pf7K2LbpnFEQJOHwCg3jFKJ6cwZ6kFOVOLEfo0gdEF2/gAoML7 aSxDFW+bA9e6MHTwdXWBpDyY =ADo1 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:19:29 -0300, Rogerio Brito said: BTW, I also notice how much people use Netscape to handle their mail and when I install Linux for my friends I install it also, for the following convenience: you don't need an MTA in your machine for the (conceptually) simple tasks of receiving and sending e-mails -- it incorporates both a POP3 and a SMTP client in a single program. That is the reason why I don't install mutt for other people (that might not know how to fix the problems when they happen). But *if* I knew of other e-mailers with the same functionality already packaged for Debian, I would consider them. Which means that if we had different applications (the mail and browser) each doing its job, we could have smaller programs, easier to maintain (for the programmer) and faster (for the user). As a former user of the Netscape mail client I can tell you that there are much better alternatives out there. The Netscape mail client is rather bloated (especially is you use it just for mail) and is (at least in my experiance) crash prone. Also its attachement to the browser has some disadvantages (if I could count the mails I have lost due to a browser crash will composing mail). Recently I found a new mail client called Pronto ( http://www.muhri.net/pronto ) it handles mail much better (and faster) then Netscape ever could while being more user friendly (IMO) then any other client out there. It handles multiple POP accounts, it imports mail very well, and has a good system of filtering, and searching through mail. It is very fast, especially when used with mysql or postgresql as the database backend (you can still use it without either, but these are much faster) There is also cpronto a console based mail client which has all (or almost all) of the features found in the graphical version. Currently I am tracking the CVS version of Pronto, but there is a Debian package in woody. A source install is also very simple with the prontoinstall program. Anyway, for those looking for a fast feature filled graphicall (or none graphical) mail client Pronto is your best bet. Tal -- | Tal Danzig | Join #libranet on the | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | openprojects IRC network | | http://www.libranet.com| Tal Danzig | | The TOP Desktop! | [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
what netscape mail does... and very few linux mail clients do.. is truncate large messages... its pretty essential for dial-up users who get volumes of mail with attachments... i've bent the ear of both the pronto and the evolution teams and they both seem to have taken on board what i was trying to say but until its implemented i'm stuck with netscape mail (and i don't think i'm alone) John WARNING - This email is confidential and may contain copyright material. If you are not the intended recipient of Capital Monitor's original e-mail, please notify me by return e-mail, delete your copy of the message, and accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused. Republication or re-dissemination, including posting to news groups or web pages, is strictly prohibited without the express prior consent of Capital Monitor Pty Ltd. John Griffiths Tel 02 6273 4899 Capital Monitor Pty Ltd Fax 02 6273 4905 Press Gallery Mobile: 0412 690 643 Parliament Housee-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Canberra ACT 2600 http://www.capmon.com Australia ICQ No: 7933859
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
John Griffiths writes: what netscape mail does... and very few linux mail clients do.. is truncate large messages... from the fetchmail man page: Resource Limit Control Options -l maxbytes, --limit maxbytes (Keyword: limit) Takes a maximum octet size argu ment. Messages larger than this size will not be fetched, not be marked seen, and will be left on the server (in foreground sessions, the progress messages will note that they are oversized). An explicit --limit of 0 overrides any limits set in your run control file. This option is intended for those needing to strictly control fetch time due to expensive and variable phone rates. In daemon mode, oversize notifications are mailed to the calling user (see the --warnings option). This option does not work with ETRN. This puts the size limiting function where it belongs and does not destroy mail. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
John Hasler wrote: This puts the size limiting function where it belongs and does not destroy mail. -- learning to use/master fetchmail is on my list of things to do (somewhere after getting a useable X in debian) but in the meantime i need to get my mail the windows model of mail client communicates with a POP and an SMTP server directly.. its that functionality that netscape-mail/ pronto/ evolution/ tradeclient/ mahogany/ aeromail/ anyone-i've-missed are aiming for. and the old truncate function is something they mostly don't have (i suspect because most of the developers are on good bandwidth) i do appreciate that the fetchmail approach is more elegant.. but it is more daunting too. John
Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
John Griffiths writes: learning to use/master fetchmail is on my list of things to do... Install and run fetchmailconf. (somewhere after getting a useable X in debian) Which fetchmailconf requires, unfortunately. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
