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 f
On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 10:27:44PM -0400, Neil L. Roeth wrote:
> My impression is that you think that to get mail from several sources
> with fetchmail and have it put into separate folders requires that you
> dump it into a single file and then filter using regular expressions
> in procmail.
On 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 ~/.procmail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thursday, August 24, 2000, 4:52:34 PM, Mark wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:47:16AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> There is no concept of "personalities". Click in the account you want to
>> use, click new message, it uses that account. The Bat
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:47:16AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> There is no concept of "personalities". Click in the account you want to
> use, click new message, it uses that account. The Bat! offers the choice of
> changing which accout you use after opening the new message.
Personality, ac
It's like a car wreck, I just had to look...
Personal Quote:
"Then ingenuity of human stupidity will never cease to amaze me." -- Steve Lamb
http://www.dmiyu.org/~grey/morpheus.html
--
Jonathan Crockett "Once and Done" Network Engineer
GPG Key ID 1024D/EA788479
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Steve Lamb wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Thursday, August 24, 2000, 12:45:11 PM, Daniel wrote:
> > Don't you guys think you have beaten this thing into the ground. Enough
> > already. Give it a rest. I don't think you are ever going to get throug
Hi,
I've been following this thread for a while now, and I'm unsure of a few
things. Perhaps you can clear things up a little.
First, I'm unclear as to whether you are claiming that the traditional unix
methods for handling mail cannot handle your needs, or if you are saying
that you have a "
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thursday, August 24, 2000, 1:51:58 PM, Will wrote:
> where, in that mix, is there a problem?
Hmmm, maybe the fact that you don't mind the mixed-up mess that those
tools force you into?
- --
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm yo
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 12:38:41AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> So there is another part of the process. You know what that is?
>
> Admitting there is a problem.
>
> Something that you, Brian, and loads others cannot admit. That there is a
> problem in the current spectrum of how mail
On Thursday, 24 August 2000 at 13:01, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Thursday, August 24, 2000, 12:45:11 PM, Daniel wrote:
> > Don't you guys think you have beaten this thing into the ground. Enough
> > already. Give it a rest. I don't think you are ever going to get through to
> > Mr. Lamb. I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thursday, August 24, 2000, 12:45:11 PM, Daniel wrote:
> Don't you guys think you have beaten this thing into the ground. Enough
> already. Give it a rest. I don't think you are ever going to get through to
> Mr. Lamb. If you are that unhappy about mail
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Steve Lamb wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Thursday, August 24, 2000, 12:19:06 PM, Will wrote:
> > maybe this is the snag you're caught on:
>
> Nope, it isn't where I am getting caught on.
>
> > in the unix paradigm (which linux inhereted/clo
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 08:18:23AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Well, gee, if you'd open your eyes and READ.. I DID GIVE THE NAME! In
> fact, I gave it well before describing where it was but since people couldn't
> find it from the NAME I thought maybe giving the exact location of it in the
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thursday, August 24, 2000, 12:19:06 PM, Will wrote:
> maybe this is the snag you're caught on:
Nope, it isn't where I am getting caught on.
> in the unix paradigm (which linux inhereted/cloned) the idea is to
> make modules that serve a certain t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wednesday, August 23, 2000, 12:30:25 PM, Matthew wrote:
> This level of modularization offers far more power and flexibility, as it
> becomes easier to implement new features and capabilities (as the amount of
> code that has to be re-implemented from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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 hand
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:40:33AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> No, I mean exactly what an MUA says it is. Mutt is an MUA but, to me, it
> is not a mail client. A mail client is able to transfer and manipulate the
> required data without need of other programs. A constant example I give,
> whi
David Teague wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, John Pearson wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > I differentiate between MUAs, MDAs, and MTAs; examples are:
> > MUA: mutt
> > MDA: procmail
> > MTA: exim
>
> John,
>
> 1) What do MTA, MUA, MDA stand for?
MTA: Mail Transfer Agent
MDA: Mail Delivery Age
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 matte
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 matt
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 c
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 03:42:16PM -0400, David Teague wrote
>
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, John Pearson wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > I differentiate between MUAs, MDAs, and MTAs; examples are:
> > MUA: mutt
> > MDA: procmail
> > MTA: exim
>
> John,
>
> 1) What do MTA, MUA, MDA stand for?
>
MT
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
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, John Pearson wrote:
[snip]
> I differentiate between MUAs, MDAs, and MTAs; examples are:
> MUA: mutt
> MDA: procmail
> MTA: exim
John,
1) What do MTA, MUA, MDA stand for?
I know that mutt is a mailer, not unlike exim and smail, but has
other functionality. proc
> 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,
%% Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
sl> On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 11:13:42AM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
sl> *sigh* We must be having a serious problem somewhere. I just
sl> checked for the third time since last night. First project in
sl> Email Clients is not acmemail (email) nor AL
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 23/08/2000 (16:49) :
>
> I would be delighted if they took that route. However, the screen shots
Have you talked to them? Send an explanation and perhaps they find it a
good idea and implement it?
--
Preben Randhol - Ph. D student - http://www.pvv.or
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 23/08/2000 (17:21) :
> Heck, I'll post the stupid URL!
>
> http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=811
:-) Which of course should have been done in the first place by the
project leader.
As the amount of work involved in making an email clie
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 11:14:00AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> There's about one page of text in the entire project, which you
> could have re-posted here. We would have been submitted to
> _less_ traffic.
You forgot to quote where I stated that there was two purposes, one of
which was
I wrote:
> There's about one page of text in the entire project, which you
> could have re-posted here. We would have been submitted to
> _less_ traffic.
Heck, I'll post the stupid URL!
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=811
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 11:13:42AM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
> sl> *sigh* We must be having a serious problem somewhere. I just
> sl> checked for the third time since last night. First project in
> sl> Email Clients is not acmemail (email) nor ALM (who knows where
> sl> that came from).
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 grumpi
%% Regarding Re: Linux Mail Client; you wrote:
sl> On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 10:52:43AM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
sl> Acmemail is the first in email, not email clients. Note above I
sl> said email clients and not email. Would you kindly check again in
sl> the right area and
Steve Lamb wrote:
> It is AIMS
> Prototype. While there is not a lot there what is there is part of what was
> asked for.
>the description states, "See the forum for more details." Given that
> the project is still in the plan
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 10:52:43AM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
> sl> Acmemail is the first in email, not email clients. Note above I
> sl> said email clients and not email. Would you kindly check again in
> sl> the right area and tell me what the first project is?
> ALM? Doesn't look lik
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 03:44:12PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> "Free software: contribute nothing, expect nothing"
As members of the Debian project are sure to tell you there are more ways
to contribute than just code. Documentation and testing are two examples that
I see recurring all the tim
%% Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It's acmemail (https://sourceforge.net/projects/acmemail/). It's a
>> webmail program that sounds nothing like what you were describing.
sl> Acmemail is the first in email, not email clients. Note above I
sl> said email clients and not email
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:56:11PM -0700, Seth Cohn wrote:
> Brian and I said the same thing, and you complained in the answer to him
> that GNU/Linux isn't just about coding. You are right, it's also about
> particpating in the process. This means doing things like using betas and
"Free softwa
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 03:25:02PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> I've never used either of those. How do they look from a user interface
> point of view? I'm thinking of things like starting a new mail and
> deciding which personality it's going to use.
There is no concept of "personalities".
On 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 t
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 05:05:56PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 08:44:08PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > ;-) . Having used Outlook, which seems to be the example people are
> > quoting of something that supports this I actually prefer the separate
> *cough* I have stated
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, PMM
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 10:04:38AM -0400, David Zoll wrote:
> > Go look on Sourceforge in the email clients and notice what the first
> > one /is/.
> It's acmemail (https://sourceforge.net/projects/acmemail/). It's a
> webmail program that sounds nothing like what you were describing.
A
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 Inbox
Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:47:49PM -0700, Seth Cohn wrote:
> > So go ahead, start a sourceforge project page, and write a damn clone.
>
> Go look on Sourceforge in the email clients and notice what the first one
> /is/.
It's acmemail (https://sourceforge.net/projects/
Steve Lamb wrote:
[snip]
> I have been specific. I have even given examples! PMMail and The Bat!
> Screen shots alone for those two products speak volumes!
OK, I've gone and looked at the websites for those two products. I
can't really test either effectively in the real world since:
* both
Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:33:48PM -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
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-
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 mach
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
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:29:32AM -0700, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> There area great many things that people suggest as "features" or "why
> doesn't it work this way", which have been tried, and either don't work,
> produce security holes, or introduce (generally unnecessary) complexity
> into
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 termi
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 12:38:41AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> This list does matter. Every time someone says, "I want something like
> this" you know what the immediate knee-jerk reaction is? "You don't want
> that. What you want to do is this." That is utter bullshit and you know it.
/me
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 f
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 t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi there
Can someone help me with creating a debianized package
of my Perl/Gtk/Gnome Mail Client?
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=6607
- --
with friendly regards
jens luedicke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:56:11PM -0700, Seth Cohn wrote:
> The first one is acmemail (and it's not what we are talking about here).
My apologies. Ever since I started the project several months ago it was
the first listed project. I had assumed it was still the case as it was the
last time
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:53:43PM -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) procmai
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:47:49PM -0700, Seth Cohn wrote:
> > So go ahead, start a sourceforge project page, and write a damn clone.
>
> Go look on Sourceforge in the email clients and notice what the first one
> /is/.
The first one is acmemail (and
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
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) P
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:47:49PM -0700, Seth Cohn wrote:
> So go ahead, start a sourceforge project page, and write a damn clone.
Go look on Sourceforge in the email clients and notice what the first one
/is/.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
Steve Lamb continues to complain:
> I have been specific. I have even given examples! PMMail and The Bat!
> Screen shots alone for those two products speak volumes!
So go ahead, start a sourceforge project page, and write a damn clone.
As someone who uses many email addresses, belongs to d
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 u
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 accou
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 08:44:08PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> ;-) . Having used Outlook, which seems to be the example people are
> quoting of something that supports this I actually prefer the separate
> instances method. Seamlessness is all very well, but things like
> deciding which account ne
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
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 folde
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:37:32AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 05:14:24PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Generally, you should just be able to tell your mail client to use a
> > different configuration.
> Hack. The mail client should be able to do that internally.
It se
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 03:34:04PM +0100, Matthew Sackman wrote:
> I think that it is slightly unreasonable to expect to be able to keep
> two email accounts separate on your local machine and yet demand to be
> able to access both through a single instance of your MUA.
I think so, too.
> To me
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 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 abou
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 03:34:04PM +0100, Matthew Sackman wrote:
> I think that it is slightly unreasonable to expect to be able to keep two
> email accounts separate on your local machine and yet demand to be able to
> access both through a single instance of your MUA.
Why? That is exactly
> > Monday, August 21, 2000, 11:35:05 AM, Mark wrote:
> > > I am somewhat tempted to ask why if you want to keep two sets of mail
> > > separate sets of mail you find it imperative to handle them both with
> > > one instance of a program.
> >
> > Convenience. There is no good reason not to, r
Steve,
After hashing through all your comments, I believe I know what you want.
An email client that has a folder for [EMAIL PROTECTED] & [EMAIL PROTECTED],
etc. (but dosn't call it a folder) with sub-folders for inbox,outbox,etc. (its
ok to call these folders) for each of the above non-folders.
> Monday, August 21, 2000, 11:35:05 AM, Mark wrote:
> > I am somewhat tempted to ask why if you want to keep two sets of mail
> > separate sets of mail you find it imperative to handle them both with
> > one instance of a program.
>
> Convenience. There is no good reason not to, really. Why s
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 05:14:24PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> Generally, you should just be able to tell your mail client to use a
> different configuration.
Hack. The mail client should be able to do that internally.
> As far as I'm aware all the MUAs with non-trivial support for IMAP can
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 07:21:38PM +0930, John Pearson wrote:
> .forward file allows you to filter your mail into any number of
> separate mailfolders at delivery time, based on a wide range of
> criteria including the contents of the headers.
Now take it a step further, what do you do on the
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 03:51:42PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> I don't see it that way. Why should they be forced to create a whole new
> account to access mail on a different server in a completely different
> fashion. No other client/server setup requires the user to do that, why sould
Gen
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 att
Of course you could also use fetchmail's "mda" option to make an
account be delivered to an arbitrary file.
But you probably don't care about that. What I've learned from this
long and silly thread is there are plenty of ways to receive mail from
several accounts and keep them separated, but none
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 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 accou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So far all the Linux clients have taken the Eudora/Lookout!/Pegasus
> approach to email. Either everything goes into a single inbox and
> you need to filter out from there and set up "personalities" or you
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 12:54:58AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 05:46:00PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > .fetchmailrc can have:
> > []
> > user x is mark here
> > []
> > user y is julie here
>
> Requires a local account for what really isn't a separate accoun
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 sof
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
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
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 hav
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
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Monday, August 21, 2000, 11:05:16 AM, John wrote:
> > An accurate description of any attempt to discuss email software with
> > Mr. Lamb.
>
> Only because Unix people have been brainwashed into thinking
> there is only one TRUE WAY of doing it.
Uh, in
At 11:46 PM 8/21/2000 +0100, Matthew Sackman wrote:
>Back to Linux...
>If (to the person who started this thread) does not want to mix his personal
>and professional emails then he should have two accounts on his Linux
>machine. Then, as the mail comes in and is handed over to the MTA, the MTA
>sho
Kent West wrote:
>Perhaps this isn't the time or place to ask, but what about using IMAP
>instead of POP (on "client" machines, like a family computer, not
>"servers")? Unless you need to be disconnected from your email server
>(which I realize is needed in some situations) or have a tendency to
>e
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 11:46:50PM +0100, Matthew Sackman wrote:
> If (to the person who started this thread) does not want to mix his personal
> and professional emails then he should have two accounts on his Linux
> machine.
I don't see it that way. Why should they be forced to create a who
> I build computers as a side line, and I usually install Windows 98. Have
> you tried setting Windows up in an easy-to-use form which allows a
> family to have an email address each from the same ISP and only
> see/download their own emails, making sure the correct address is shown
> in the 'from'
-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.
^^
-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
-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.
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 da
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 separat
-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. Rig
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
