Bug#82906: Typos in elm -vv.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is 2.4pl25ME+99c-1 okay? It wasn't in today's updates, so I cannot tell. I assume it will come tomorrow. You can find it at http://incoming.debian.org/ in the meantime. Well, yes, I know. :-) I was thinking to go to bed, though. I am just finishing weekly update on one of the servers and then go to bed. If it is relevant to you, I could do special update tomorrow (well, later today), otherwise I would leave for the next update (which I would most likely do next Sunday). Whenever suits you. Do you think this upload will get elm into testing? Right now, testing is without it. If nothing untoward happens, yes. What's the URL (or where can I find a reference to it) where is list of reasons why a package (packages) is not added/updated in testing from unstable? http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_excuses.html. Thanks, Matej
Bug#82908: http://people.debian.org/~vela/elm-me+/00-debian.diff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I guess I will try this new version once it hits the archives (in i386) and play with mail.services if I find some documentation to/for(?) that. Didn't upstream explain it? Just write pop3.SoftHome.Net pop to ~/.elm/mail.services. This works on PL95 as well. Well, is this explained somewhere (in the package, not bugs.debian.org)? FAQ, README, or somewhere like that? Is there an explanation, why is it pop and not pop3, for example? This type of documentation is what I had in mind. As upstream already said, see README.ME+; I find it quite clear in PL99c. [...] I don't agree the server should be marked as broken if it is configured in such way. I simply don't see any way to determine whether it supports IMAP. It could start with POP3 and then move onto IMAP, if POP3 is not responding. :-) But then people with blocked POP3 would complain, wouldn't they? IMAP has more features and it makes sense to try it first. Or the input could include (without supporting text files) information that the server Elm is supposed to connect to is a POP3 server, that Elm is not supposed to even try IMAP. This is the wishlist I had in mind (I think :-) ). You've said so in your original report; upstream read it and obviously decided mail.services is enough. Thanks, Matej
Processed: Re: http://people.debian.org/~vela/elm-me+/00-debian.diff
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: retitle 82908 elm-me+: Problem connecting to POP3 and editing headers using arrow keys Bug#82908: elm-me+: editing headers with arrows Changed Bug title. severity 82908 normal Bug#82908: elm-me+: Problem connecting to POP3 and editing headers using arrow keys Severity set to `normal'. Thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Bug#82908: http://people.debian.org/~vela/elm-me+/00-debian.diff
severity 82908 wishlist clone 82908 -1 retitle 82908 elm-me+: mail.services not good enough retitle -1 elm-me+: editing headers using arrow keys stop [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: retitle 82908 elm-me+: Problem connecting to POP3 and editing headers using arrow keys severity 82908 normal First, you have been explained twice the documented, working procedure for handling the situation. If you dislike it, the only appropriate severity is `wishlist' (the likely tag being `wontfix'). Second, the two issues are in no way related, and must be filed as separate reports. Third, you omitted my question about README.ME+. Actually the timeout was around 30 minutes and it didn't get through anyway. (You were talking about a configurable timeout, so I assumed a minimum practical value.) 15-30 seconds wouldn't be such a big of deal if, at the end, it actually connected. If I had to wait 30 seconds for Elm to connect to POP3, where IMAP is totally disabled because I didn't create elsewhere mentioned text file, then I would accept it. That is absurd. You would rather waste time each and every day than write a single line to a single file once? There is *no chance* this will ever be implemented. So you agree that it's upstream call? There is no good (and, especially, safe) answer to that. :-) Upstream doesn't support binary distributions and Debian doesn't change (much) what upstream distributes. Especially now, when there is no real Debian maintainer. So, I don't agree, nor disagree. I believe I will make my mind once I try new Elm. Until then do whatever suits you. Why reply if you have nothing to say?
Processed: Re: http://people.debian.org/~vela/elm-me+/00-debian.diff
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: severity 82908 wishlist Bug#82908: elm-me+: Problem connecting to POP3 and editing headers using arrow keys Severity set to `wishlist'. clone 82908 -1 Bug#82908: elm-me+: Problem connecting to POP3 and editing headers using arrow keys Bug 82908 cloned as bug 163035. retitle 82908 elm-me+: mail.services not good enough Bug#82908: elm-me+: Problem connecting to POP3 and editing headers using arrow keys Changed Bug title. retitle -1 elm-me+: editing headers using arrow keys Bug#163035: elm-me+: Problem connecting to POP3 and editing headers using arrow keys Changed Bug title. stop Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Bug#82908: marked as done (elm-me+: mail.services not good enough)
Your message dated Tue, 1 Oct 2002 16:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Not worth it.
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 19 Jan 2001 23:08:33 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jan 19 17:08:33 2001
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com [:::24.0.95.81]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 14Jke1-0006oZ-00; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:08:33 -0600
Received: from Athlon ([24.16.221.207]) by femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:08:01 -0800
Received: from pehasys by Athlon with local (Exim 3.20 #1 (Debian))
id 14Jke0-0004Hr-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:08:32 -0800
Subject: Firewalled IMAP, not POP3 problem.
To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:52:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Petr Hudec [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL87 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1395
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: elm-me+
Version: 2.4pl25ME+87-1
Severity: wishlist
(This could be normal or important, but since POP3 functionality isn't
important in Elm, I'll stick with wishlist.)
In this version, I cannot connect to my POP3 server, since that server
doesn't offer IMAP, it offers POP3 only. The changelog mentions that elm
uses IMAP to access [EMAIL PROTECTED] folder first and tries POP if
connection to IMAP port gives Connection refused. But this server just times
out. There is never Connection refused. . Therefore I cannot access my
POP3 account.
Maybe there is an option or switch to force to use POP3, but I haven't found
or noticed it. Command cd /usr/share/doc/elm-me+ zgrep -i \\\pop\\\
* doesn't show anything usefull.
I was going to offer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:{imap|pop3}] syntax (like
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:pop3) to force to use non-default protocol, but then I've
noticed that this is used to access different folders in IMAP. Maybe it
could be [EMAIL PROTECTED]:{imap|pop3}/port_number] ? I am not sure if
username can contain : and if not, then it could be
[{imap|pop3}[/port_number]:[EMAIL PROTECTED] syntax.
Version 2.4pl25ME+73-2 worked for me.
- Peter.
P.S.: Is there a way to specify From: address in Elm? Some lines in
changelog suggest it does, but I didn't figure out how to set that
header. I know full name can be specified in ~/.elm/elmrc .
- P.
---
Received: (at 82908-close) by bugs.debian.org; 1 Oct 2002 23:49:41 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 01 18:49:41 2002
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 17wWlp-0004Lr-00; Tue, 01 Oct 2002 18:49:41 -0500
Received: from Athlon ([12.224.234.241]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP
id [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:49:11 +
Received: from pehasys by Athlon with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 17wWlK-0002bB-00; Tue, 01 Oct 2002 16:49:10 -0700
Subject: Not worth it.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 16:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL73 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When enough is enough.
- Peter.
