Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 2009-04-03 08:54, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > On Fri,03.Apr.09, 04:22:11, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >> On 2009-04-03 02:06, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>> AFAIK fetchmail defaults to delivering your mail by using a local SMTP.
> >>> This is a Bad Thing (tm), becaus
On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 16:54 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Fri,03.Apr.09, 04:22:11, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On 2009-04-03 02:06, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>
> >> AFAIK fetchmail defaults to delivering your mail by using a local SMTP.
> >> This is a Bad Thing (tm), because it can creat
On 2009-04-03 08:54, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Fri,03.Apr.09, 04:22:11, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 2009-04-03 02:06, Andrei Popescu wrote:
[snip]
AFAIK fetchmail defaults to delivering your mail by using a local SMTP.
This is a Bad Thing (tm), because it can create a lot of problems,
YMMV
How so?
> > I don't know getmail, but what I like about fetchmail's delivery through
> > the local SMTP server is that I can use procmail to filter my messages.
> > Can getmail do this?
>
> Yes it can. Have a look at:
>
> http://pyropus.ca/software/getmail/faq.html#faq-integrating-procmail
>
> It basica
On Fri,03.Apr.09, 07:30:32, Norbert Zeh wrote:
> > AFAIK fetchmail defaults to delivering your mail by using a local SMTP.
> > This is a Bad Thing (tm), because it can create a lot of problems, YMMV
>
> I don't know getmail, but what I like about fetchmail's delivery through
> the local SMTP ser
On Fri,03.Apr.09, 04:22:11, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 2009-04-03 02:06, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> AFAIK fetchmail defaults to delivering your mail by using a local SMTP.
>> This is a Bad Thing (tm), because it can create a lot of problems,
>> YMMV
>
> How so? It (fetchmail->Postfix/Spa
On 02 Apr 2009, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Thu April 2 2009, Anthony Campbell wrote:
> > Probably not an answer to the OP, but when I was having trouble with
> > fetchmail a year ago I changed to getmail and the problems went away
> > immediately. It's easier to configure and more reliable.
>
>
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Wolodja Wentland
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 07:30 -0300, Norbert Zeh wrote:
>> > AFAIK fetchmail defaults to delivering your mail by using a local SMTP.
>> > This is a Bad Thing (tm), because it can create a lot of problems, YMMV
>> I don't know getmail, but
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 07:30 -0300, Norbert Zeh wrote:
> > AFAIK fetchmail defaults to delivering your mail by using a local SMTP.
> > This is a Bad Thing (tm), because it can create a lot of problems, YMMV
> I don't know getmail, but what I like about fetchmail's delivery through
> the local SM
Norbert Zeh writes:
>> AFAIK fetchmail defaults to delivering your mail by using a local SMTP.
>> This is a Bad Thing (tm), because it can create a lot of problems, YMMV
>
> I don't know getmail, but what I like about fetchmail's delivery through
> the local SMTP server is that I can use procma
> AFAIK fetchmail defaults to delivering your mail by using a local SMTP.
> This is a Bad Thing (tm), because it can create a lot of problems, YMMV
I don't know getmail, but what I like about fetchmail's delivery through
the local SMTP server is that I can use procmail to filter my messages.
Can
On 2009-04-03 02:06, Andrei Popescu wrote:
[snip]
AFAIK fetchmail defaults to delivering your mail by using a local SMTP.
This is a Bad Thing (tm), because it can create a lot of problems, YMMV
How so? It (fetchmail->Postfix/SpamAssassin->maildrop->~/Maildir)
has been working perfectly on
On Thu,02.Apr.09, 06:05:42, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Thu April 2 2009, Anthony Campbell wrote:
> > Probably not an answer to the OP, but when I was having trouble with
> > fetchmail a year ago I changed to getmail and the problems went away
> > immediately. It's easier to configure and more rel
13 matches
Mail list logo
