On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 09:43:07AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 09:36:04 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > > > Well, that depends. I'm not sure if cucipop impliments the nonstandard > >POP send protocol. I do believe that is proprietary to qpopper and not part > >of the formal RFC. Of course, I don't have them handy to confirm, so take > >that all with a mild grain of salt. > > Just wanted to say that cucipop does not support pop sends. Just tried > it and it returned: > > Tue, 09 Jun 98 09:41:06 ==> -ERR Invalid command, try one of: STAT, LIST > [msg], RETR msg, TOP msg n, DELE msg, UIDL [msg], NOOP, RSET, QUIT ; Your > server, while it is a POP3 server, does not support sending. > > I think the last part pretty much sums it up. ;)
A few messages back you said that you found qpopper unacceptable because the POP send is buggy, so you preferred cucipop. Now you say cucipop doesn't even have POP send. Am I missing something here? hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
