At 3:51 AM -0500 on 6/10/98, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>It is probably a simple oversight. Had you reported it, it could no doubt
>be fixed easily (Miquel has indicated that he has already fixed some things
>as necessary). I don't think a simple bug such as this is sufficient
>to comment on the quality
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Steve Lamb wrote:
: On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 09:15:42 -0500 (CDT), Nathan E Norman wrote:
:
: >: None at all. It is a general Linux question which really isn't
: >: specific to Debian at all.
:
: >Not to hack on you for "not reading the thread", but had you done so you
: >m
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 09:15:42 -0500 (CDT), Nathan E Norman wrote:
>: None at all. It is a general Linux question which really isn't
>: specific to Debian at all.
>Not to hack on you for "not reading the thread", but had you done so you
>might have noticed that Miquel van Smoorenburg not only
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Steve Lamb wrote:
: On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 21:50:21 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
:
: >So your advice to avoid qpopper is not necessarily relevant to Debian?
:
: It is as relevant to Debian as a message containing advice to avoid
: cucipop is. Or advice to use qpopper is.
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 21:50:21 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>So your advice to avoid qpopper is not necessarily relevant to Debian?
It is as relevant to Debian as a message containing advice to avoid
cucipop is. Or advice to use qpopper is. Or advice to use cucipop is. Or
even a message aski
On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 04:25:30AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> >It is probably a simple oversight.
> So simple it should not have been there in the first place.
That's exactly what an oversight is.
> >Had you reported it, it could no doubt be fixed easily (Miquel has
> >>indicated that he has
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 18:51:41 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 01:41:59AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 18:29:10 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>> >A few messages back you said that you found qpopper unacceptable because
>> >the POP send is buggy, so you prefer
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 18:51:41 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 01:41:59AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 18:29:10 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>>
>> >A few messages back you said that you found qpopper unacceptable because
>> >the POP send is buggy, so you pre
On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 01:41:59AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 18:29:10 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> >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 sen
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 18:29:10 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>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?
Yes. You must read the *WHOLE* m
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.
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 wit
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:02:50 -0500 (EST), Michael Roark wrote:
>collect: premature EOM: connection reset by dial31.planters.net
>collect: I/O error on connection from dial31.planters.net
>One follows the other without fail. Should I try cucipop instead?
Well, that depends. I'm not sure if c
13 matches
Mail list logo
