Chris Green [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 06:10:10PM -0500, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> > If you like Mutt so much, why not look instead at using another POP3
> > implementation (fetchmail) while still using Mutt? That's how it's
> > /supposed/ to work.
> >
> Fetchmail is equally useless. Another user has reported *exactly* the
> same problem that I have. If you read your POP3 mailbox from more
> than one location fetchmail simply doesn't work.
>
> What I need is to be able to view my POP3 'folder' and delete
> individual messages. Most of the newer Unix/Linux MUAs do in fact
> work this way with POP3 folders, it makes them look just like ordinary
> local folders to the user. Using fetchmail with mutt can't do this at
> all.
Well, it sounds like what you really want is to use POP as a mailbox format
instead of a transportation protocol. I agree it would be cool if Mutt
could do this, and I think it's proper, as it's not doing MDA work in that
case... provided it doesn't violate any POP specifications, but I've no
idea on that. I doubt it would.
--
Jeremy Blosser | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jblosser.firinn.org/
-----------------+-------------------------+------------------------------
"If Microsoft can change and compete on quality, I've won." -- L. Torvalds
PGP signature
