Re: fetchmail -v Not Verbose Enough

2005-03-24 Thread George
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 08:00:03PM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote: > George, > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:06:06AM -0800, George wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:56:56AM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 08:12:21AM -0800, George wrote: > > Thanks for the reply, Jason. Su

Re: fetchmail -v Not Verbose Enough

2005-03-22 Thread Jason Tishler
George, On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:06:06AM -0800, George wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:56:56AM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 08:12:21AM -0800, George wrote: > > > I've since decided I'm too creative with wasting time so I thought > > > I'd start using the daemon mod

Re: fetchmail -v Not Verbose Enough

2005-03-22 Thread George
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:56:56AM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote: > George, > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 08:12:21AM -0800, George wrote: > > I've since decided I'm too creative with wasting time so I thought I'd > > start using the daemon mode. That worked fine, too, but now I've > > since discovered

Re: fetchmail -v Not Verbose Enough

2005-03-22 Thread Jason Tishler
George, On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 08:12:21AM -0800, George wrote: > I've since decided I'm too creative with wasting time so I thought I'd > start using the daemon mode. That worked fine, too, but now I've > since discovered that if fetchmail is run manually, the verbose option > produces no output

fetchmail -v Not Verbose Enough

2005-03-22 Thread George
In the past, I've had no trouble running fetchmail and would regularly run it with the -v (verbose) switch to amuse myself. I've since decided I'm too creative with wasting time so I thought I'd start using the daemon mode. That worked fine, too, but now I've since discovered that if fetchmai