On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 02:57:33AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: > >I assume that there is a MDA installed yes. > > Why? QMail, Sendmail, Exim and I believe Postfix all do not require an > MDA. Furthermore only one, to my knowledge, does any filtering at all. Of > course those are only the major 4 on unix. Imagine retreiving mail w/POP > from a Windows box for a moment.
Debian installs procmail by default I believe. I don't retrieve mail with pop on windows. I use Debian, that's why I'm on this list. That's like saying outlook express sucks because it doesn't use an MTA. That's just not the way things work in windows (usually). > > That is not so far-fetched > >as you seem to think. The MDAs I know can also be configured by the > >user without access to global configuration file. > > Presuming the user has shell or FTP access to the machine. Again, how could the user be running mutt if he doesn't have shell access! > Ah-ah-ah, we're not discussing Debian, are we? This is a Debian list > but the thread started out about reply-to for clients which are RFC2369 > ignorant. > Those clients can exist on any OS. Example: > From: Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5a (Windows/20040120) There's mutt for windows. I think there's also procmail for windows. But really that's not my problem. When using windows I just ssh into my computer and run mutt. > Really. Access 2 mail accounts using completely separate settings, > keeping separate sent-archives, I think this should be possible. > separate SMTP servers, That's not part of my needs (I only use the SMTP server from my ISP). > separate inbound servers, I have 4 right now. (I use fetchmail) > keep the mail separate at all points from retrival through > filtering and onto delivery into the local folders. Fetchmail passes my mail to procmail which filters each of them into different folders. You could even have procmail run completely different filters on each source. > Last I checked (3-4 months ago) mutt couldn't do it. The point being that yeah mutt can't do it *alone*, but that's because of mutt's *philosophy*. Mutt doesn't include an editor either. > You didn't read the archives, did you? *sigh* Stop mentionning this. No one is going to search the archives to read arguments they consider to be wrong. Bijan -- Bijan Soleymani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.crasseux.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
