Bug#82908: http://people.debian.org/~vela/elm-me+/00-debian.diff

[Matej Vela]

[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

Bug#82908: http://people.debian.org/~vela/elm-me+/00-debian.diff

[Matej Vela]

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?