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
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 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 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
> No, I mean exactly what an MUA says it is. Mutt is an MUA but, to me,
it
> is not a mail client. A mail client is able to transfer and manipulate
the
> required data without need of other programs. A constant example I give,
> which is flawed as all are, is web browsing. A web browser is,
On Wed, 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
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 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 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:
[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 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 12:34:17AM -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
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, 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 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
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 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
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.
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 07:21:38PM +0930, John Pearson wrote:
> .forward file allows you to filter your mail into any number of
> separate mailfolders at delivery time, based on a wide range of
> criteria including the contents of the headers.
Now take it a step further, what do you do on the
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 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
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
-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
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 acc
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 up
-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.
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
-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
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 t
-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
-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 conne
I suggest you use mysql if you have it (much faster)
You'll have to setup a database for it first (read the instruction in the
source or mail the pronto mailing list)
Tal
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 01:17:51 + (UTC), Pollywog said:
>
> On 17-Aug-2000 Pollywog wrote:
> >
> > I can't seem to get
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
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 clien
On 17-Aug-2000 Pollywog wrote:
>
> I can't seem to get it started because it asks for information about mysql
> or
> other database.
Nevermind, I ran the installer (which is very slow) and it is working now.
--
Andrew
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 , --limit
(Keyword: limit) Takes a maximum octet size argu
ment. Messa
On 17-Aug-2000 Tal Danzig wrote:
> 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,
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 try
62 matches
Mail list logo
