On 1999-12-09 10:45:23 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
> That isn't "All you can reasonably do with POP3", it's perfectly
> reasonable to treat a POP3 server as a single mailbox much the
> same as a local mailbox file. You can see a list of the E-Mail
> messages in a POP3 mailbox, you can selectively view messages in
> a POP3 mailbox and you can selectively delete messages in a POP3
> mailbox.
You may wish to notice that even the TOP command is _optional_ with
POP3, as is UIDL. POP is an e-mail download protocol, and you
should not try to overload it with other functionalities.
> Neither are any local mail folders _necessary_ with a POP3
> mailbox if you're happy with a single folder to store mail. POP3
> can store mail, IMAP4 just adds the ability to have multiple,
> differently named folders. Both are quite similar from a user's
> point of view, you can get a list of mail headers, you can
> download individual messages to the local system.
Have you ever stored a message in a POP3 folder without going
through the mail transport agent, i.e., without resending the
message? There is no standard way to do this.
> I (and a lot of other people) keep saying that fetchmail _can't_
> "do really everything mutt's own POP3 support gives", or it can't
> do what mutt's POP3 support _could_ do. In particular fetchmail
> doesn't allow the user to selectively download and delete
> messages from a POP3 mailbox having been shown the headers.
See above: TOP isn't mandatory with POP3.
> I really think that mutt should either support both POP3 and
> IMAP4 or neither.
As I said before, you are free to design an interface with an
external mail folder manipulation program, and to develop such a
program.
Show us working code, or stop complaining, please.
--
http://www.guug.de/~roessler/
