Re: netscape bus error

[Jerome Acks Jr]

On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 12:29:47PM +0930, Tom Cook wrote:
> On  0, John Habermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > Do support for a community group that recycles computers installs debian 
> > and 
> > gives them to low income people. One of the recipients is issues with 
> > Netscape. Netscape (4.77-2) doesn't open at all and when netscape is 
> > entered 
> > into an xterm he receives only a line saying "Bus error".
> > Anyone have any ideas, I haven't come across this before. He is one of our 
> > early recipients and has just bought a new computer 1.4 ghz athlon 256 ddr 
> > memory and has got debian unstable with kde as the desktop environment, bit 
> > different to potato with gnome as our desktop which is what he started with.
> 
> Different netscape versions throughout the ages have done that fairly
> reliably.  Netscape 4.79 currently works well for me on a woody
> system, but who knows how the innards of netscape think?

"Bus error" can be caused by a corrupt file in your .netscape
directory. Try moving "~/.netscape" to "~/.netscape.old" and then run
netscape. If that fixes the error, you can then move bookmarks, abook,
and maybe lipref.js over to the new .netscape to recover bookmarks,
address book, and users preferences.

-- 
Jerome


pgpZSPreBGwMD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: netscape bus error

[Tom Cook]

On  0, John Habermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Do support for a community group that recycles computers installs debian and 
> gives them to low income people. One of the recipients is issues with 
> Netscape. Netscape (4.77-2) doesn't open at all and when netscape is entered 
> into an xterm he receives only a line saying "Bus error".
> Anyone have any ideas, I haven't come across this before. He is one of our 
> early recipients and has just bought a new computer 1.4 ghz athlon 256 ddr 
> memory and has got debian unstable with kde as the desktop environment, bit 
> different to potato with gnome as our desktop which is what he started with.

Different netscape versions throughout the ages have done that fairly
reliably.  Netscape 4.79 currently works well for me on a woody
system, but who knows how the innards of netscape think?

Tom
-- 
Tom Cook
Information Technology Services, The University of Adelaide

"That you're not paranoid does not mean they're not out to get you."
- Robert Waldner

Get my GPG public key: 
https://pinky.its.adelaide.edu.au/~tkcook/tom.cook-at-adelaide.edu.au


pgpxi7P2012QA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: netscape bus error

[Karsten M. Self]

on Thu, Apr 18, 2002, dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 11:05:24PM +1000, John Habermann wrote:
> | Hi
> | 
> | Do support for a community group that recycles computers installs debian 
> and 
> | gives them to low income people. One of the recipients is issues with 
> | Netscape. Netscape (4.77-2) doesn't open at all and when netscape is 
> entered 
> 
> Use something else.  Netscape 4 is really old, and binary-only dists
> aren't the best either.

I'll second this.  Strongly.

> | I haven't come across this before. He is one of our early recipients
> | and has just bought a new computer 1.4 ghz athlon 256 ddr memory and
> | has got debian unstable with kde as the desktop environment, bit
> | different to potato with gnome as our desktop which is what he
> | started with.
> 
> Try Mozilla or Galeon instead or even Konqueror.

On a 1.4 GHz system, any of the above will be more than plenty.

For systems at or below about 233 MHz, I'd strongly recommend a
lighter-weight client.  I find text-mode browsers work well -- w3m and
lynx.  For graphical clients, BrowseX (not packaged for Debian, but
available as a single binary) is pretty slick and runs very well on
systems down to 486s (which **really** ought to be retired by now).

Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
   But GNU/Linux _does_ tell you how to live your life:  cat .liferc


pgp1t0SuRa8V9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: netscape bus error

[dman]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 11:05:24PM +1000, John Habermann wrote:
| Hi
| 
| Do support for a community group that recycles computers installs debian and 
| gives them to low income people. One of the recipients is issues with 
| Netscape. Netscape (4.77-2) doesn't open at all and when netscape is entered 

Use something else.  Netscape 4 is really old, and binary-only dists
aren't the best either.

| into an xterm he receives only a line saying "Bus error".
| Anyone have any ideas,

Netscape tried to access memory that doesn't exist, or is outside of
its address space.  It's rather easy to make a C/C++ program do that.

| I haven't come across this before. He is one of our early recipients
| and has just bought a new computer 1.4 ghz athlon 256 ddr memory and
| has got debian unstable with kde as the desktop environment, bit
| different to potato with gnome as our desktop which is what he
| started with.

Try Mozilla or Galeon instead or even Konqueror.


FYI  The netscape (4) on the solaris/sparc systems at school always
give a Bus Error when you exit correctly via the menu.  Just a fact of
life (and not fatal there).

-D

-- 

The lot is cast into the lap,
but its every decision is from the Lord.
Proverbs 16:33


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: netscape bus error

[Sean 'Shaleh' Perry]

On 18-Apr-2002 John Habermann wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> Do some support for a community group that recycles computers, installs 
> debian and then gives them to low income people. One of the recipients has 
> issues with Netscape. Netscape (4.77-2) doesn't open at all and when netscape
> is entered into an xterm he receives only a line saying "Bus error".
> Anyone have any ideas, I haven't come across this before. He is one of our 
> early recipients and has just bought a new computer with money he received 
> from an accident claim. It is a 1.4 ghz athlon 256 ddr memory and has got 
> debian unstable with kde as the desktop environment, bit different to potato 
> with gnome as the desktop, which is what he started with. I am really 
> impressed that he has stuck with linux, shows you what happens when people 
> start learning computers on linux.

Seach this list for netscape and bus error.  Also look at the netscape bugs on
bugs.debian.org.  There have been different issues at different times causing
this. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

netscape bus error

[John Habermann]

Hi

Do some support for a community group that recycles computers, installs 
debian and then gives them to low income people. One of the recipients has 
issues with Netscape. Netscape (4.77-2) doesn't open at all and when netscape 
is entered into an xterm he receives only a line saying "Bus error".
Anyone have any ideas, I haven't come across this before. He is one of our 
early recipients and has just bought a new computer with money he received 
from an accident claim. It is a 1.4 ghz athlon 256 ddr memory and has got 
debian unstable with kde as the desktop environment, bit different to potato 
with gnome as the desktop, which is what he started with. I am really 
impressed that he has stuck with linux, shows you what happens when people 
start learning computers on linux.

Thanks for any help

John Habermann


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

netscape bus error

[John Habermann]

Hi

Do support for a community group that recycles computers installs debian and 
gives them to low income people. One of the recipients is issues with 
Netscape. Netscape (4.77-2) doesn't open at all and when netscape is entered 
into an xterm he receives only a line saying "Bus error".
Anyone have any ideas, I haven't come across this before. He is one of our 
early recipients and has just bought a new computer 1.4 ghz athlon 256 ddr 
memory and has got debian unstable with kde as the desktop environment, bit 
different to potato with gnome as our desktop which is what he started with.

Thanks for any help

John Habermann


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error)

[Morten Liebach]

On 26, aug, 2000 at 12:29:26 +0200, Carel Fellinger wrote:
> Hai,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 05:19:29PM -0300, Rogerio Brito wrote:
> > On Aug 16 2000, André Dahlqvist wrote:
> 
> > > quiet a lot of people who seam to like using Netscape to handle
> > > their mail, and I think it's nice to give those people that option.
> ...
> > BTW, I also notice how much people use Netscape to handle
> > their mail and when I install Linux for my friends I install
> > it also, for the following convenience: you don't need an MTA
> > in your machine for the (conceptually) simple tasks of
> > receiving and sending e-mails -- it incorporates both a POP3
> > and a SMTP client in a single program.
> > 
> > That is the reason why I don't install mutt for other people
> > (that might not know how to fix the problems when they
> > happen).  But *if* I knew of other e-mailers with the same
> > functionality already packaged for Debian, I would consider
> > them.

Spruce!? Nice GTK+-GUI based Netscape-mail'ish POP email thingy.

I don't think I would've liked using mutt as a Linux newbie, and it then
helps to have something you feel familiar with from day 1, and for me
that was KMail (I used SuSE back then, which defaulted to KDE-1.1), but
spruce is about the same in a GTK+ version.

But of course, mutt simply rocks, and I use nothing else for mail now
that I have muttzilla set up ...

Regards
Morten

-- 
UNIX, reach out and grep someone!

Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error)

[Vitux]

Carel Fellinger wrote:
> 
> Hai,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 05:19:29PM -0300, Rogerio Brito wrote:
> > On Aug 16 2000, André Dahlqvist wrote:
> 
> > > quiet a lot of people who seam to like using Netscape to handle
> > > their mail, and I think it's nice to give those people that option.
> ...
> >   BTW, I also notice how much people use Netscape to handle
> >   their mail and when I install Linux for my friends I install
> >   it also, for the following convenience: you don't need an MTA
> >   in your machine for the (conceptually) simple tasks of
> >   receiving and sending e-mails -- it incorporates both a POP3
> >   and a SMTP client in a single program.
> >
> >   That is the reason why I don't install mutt for other people
> >   (that might not know how to fix the problems when they
> >   happen).  But *if* I knew of other e-mailers with the same
> >   functionality already packaged for Debian, I would consider
> >   them.
> 
> You could use mutt's recently build in support for POP and IMAP servers
> (or you could use fetchmail:) and use ssmtp just to send the mail (seems
> a simple program to install). But I don't see how you can do without local
> mail on a linux system, local services need to be able to send reports if
> things go wrong.
> 
I second.
As a matter of fact, cron depends on exim (IIRC) on my potato-box.
This was kind of hard to understand for me (being a newbie), since
I've never used exim for anything. Now, I think I'll have a go at
doing my mail the *nix way, since exim is there for local mail
anyway.
Regards
Vitux

-- 
"I'm not a crook"
Richard Nixon

Debian GNU/Linux
Micro$loth-free Zone

Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error)

[Carel Fellinger]

Hai,

On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 05:19:29PM -0300, Rogerio Brito wrote:
> On Aug 16 2000, André Dahlqvist wrote:

> > quiet a lot of people who seam to like using Netscape to handle
> > their mail, and I think it's nice to give those people that option.
...
>   BTW, I also notice how much people use Netscape to handle
>   their mail and when I install Linux for my friends I install
>   it also, for the following convenience: you don't need an MTA
>   in your machine for the (conceptually) simple tasks of
>   receiving and sending e-mails -- it incorporates both a POP3
>   and a SMTP client in a single program.
> 
>   That is the reason why I don't install mutt for other people
>   (that might not know how to fix the problems when they
>   happen).  But *if* I knew of other e-mailers with the same
>   functionality already packaged for Debian, I would consider
>   them.

You could use mutt's recently build in support for POP and IMAP servers
(or you could use fetchmail:) and use ssmtp just to send the mail (seems
a simple program to install). But I don't see how you can do without local
mail on a linux system, local services need to be able to send reports if
things go wrong.

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Cam Ellison]

Steve Lamb wrote:
> 
> 
> I have been specific.  I have even given examples!  PMMail and The Bat!
> Screen shots alone for those two products speak volumes!
> 

I don't know The Bat, but I use PMMail, and it's head and shoulders
above anything else I have seen.  I don think it asking too much for
someone who is working on one of the other MUAs to check it out and try
to incorporate some of its features.

I have to assume from the contents of this thread that there is nothing
in Linux that will do the (entire) job.


Cam

Re: Netscape Bus Error

[Manfred Sindhoff]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>  Hash: SHA1
> 
>  Hi there 
> 
>  Can someone explain me what a "Bus Error" is?
>  It sounds like a new invention by Micro$oft.
> 
I had this error on a SuSE 6.4 Linux and got a fix from SuSE. It was for
Netscape 4.72 and contained five workarounds:
a) Avoid pipe buffer overflow
b) Avoid freeze due intermixed thread handling of
   Netscape's Java and X Window System
c) Fix crashes due register input methods on already
   destroyed windows.
d) Avoid crashes due existing temporary directories
   of plugger plugin.
e) Set MALLOC_CHECK_ to avoid chrashes due doubled
   freed pointers.

According to SuSE an update to Netscape 4.75 should also fix this.
I regarded this as a strange error message too...

Fred

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 10:27:44PM -0400, Neil L. Roeth wrote:
> My impression is that you think that to get mail from several sources
> with fetchmail and have it put into separate folders requires that you
> dump it into a single file and then filter using regular expressions
> in procmail.

Nope.  I feel that if one wants to have filters that separate mailing
lists out on a per account basis one must also have the filters contain logic
to know which account those lists are going to so they also know which
subdirectory to place them into.  So, for example, if I have lists for foo and
bar and they are directories under ~/Mail how will a filter know that incoming
mail from a mailing list is to bar and place it in ~/Mail/bar/lists/barlist
without that logic in the filter itself?

> uses procmail, but does not even require a procmail configuration
> file, and therefore has no regular expressions, much less any to
> modify, to put mail from separate mail accounts into separate folders
> on your local machine.  Mail from separate accounts *never* gets
> merged into a single source from which it needs to be filtered.

But it also doesn't get filtered at all so all incoming mail from all
mailing lists is merged together once again.  While I use mutt in this
configuration and find it up to the task I don't enjoy it and would much
rather the mail be separated out with mutt providing me a constant, on-screen
overview of what accounts and folders within those accounts have new mail.

> Extensions to allow the folder to have a different name than the mail
> server, and to invoke fetchmail just once for all your mail servers,
> are obvious.  The above assumes one account per mail server, but that
> is not hard to relax, either.

True.

> problem of the mail clients.  As others have pointed out, you can
> configure existing mail clients to send it out via the correct server
> with hooks attached to the folders.  That sounds darn close to what
> you want.

Close, but not ideal to what I need.  This is something I cannot waver
upon.  Thank you for your insight, though.

> We are all looking forward to trying out the mail client you build that does
> exactly what you want - I would like the Emacs version :-)

Nope, no Emacs.  :P

I find it humourous that later on you ask why one should build SMTP into a
mail client yet, apparently, have no problems with an editor that has a built
in FTP client, web client, mail and news client...  :)

> I don't understand why you object to your mail client invoking an
> instance of, say, sendmail in order to contact the appropriate
> outgoing server for the particular message you are sending.  Some
> process has to contact that server using SMTP, why build SMTP into a
> mail client when there is already an existing program that does that?

The assumption is that there is a sendmail to envoke.  In a private
message to someone else I finally was able to put to words why I say an SMTP
interface is a requirement for a mail client in my mind.  Let me see if I can
rewrite what I wrote there (at work on a different client and I don't have my
ZIP disk with me to get at those archives).

It all comes down to defining an interface.  When an MUA calls an MTA now
it is traditionally via the command line.  However, this is not the only way
one can call an MTA.  SMTP is just another interface to that MTA, IMHO.
However, there are two differences between the command-line and SMTP that I
can see.

1: Command-line you're limited to the local machine doing delivery.  I do not
think a blind handoff is a "delivery" so having a local SMTP server doing
nothing but smart-host handoffs is a waste of resources.

2: SMTP is a defined standard (RFC821 IIRC) whereas command-line has no
defined standard of getting the message to the MTA.  The current ad hoc
standard is "Sendmail replacement" which means it mimics sendmail's behavior
as of version x with no guarentees that it mimics any recent command-line
interface chances.  And let's not even get into the grand-daddy issue of
sendmail.  Tell me, what is the default location of sendmail again?  /etc?
/lib?  /usr/bin?  /usr/sbin?  /usr/lib?  I forget what it is on OS/2 and BeOS.
I forget if BeOS has a variant of sendmail.

Correct me if I'm wrong but in fetchmail's past it didn't directly call
the MDA but, instead, fed the messages into the MTA through SMTP.  I do
believe that is still an option.  I would also like to think that fetchmail
also allows the option of feeding into a different machine's SMTP server.
In fact, a quick check of the man page on fetchmail's man page says that it
does.

Now, the MTA's job is to know how to deliver the message from one machine
to another.  Great, the MTA is still there to do that.  But by building SMTP
into the client you have the added option of not being forced to use the local
MTA, if indeed there is one.  There is a difference between adding another
interface into a mail server and addi

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Neil L. Roeth]

On Aug 23, Steve Lamb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
 > On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:53:43PM -0700, brian moore wrote:
 > > Huh?  From a single source?
 > 
 > Yes, a single source.  Fetchmail.
 > 
 > > Note that in my example (if you had bothered to read it), you would have
 > > seen that ~/.procmailrc was irrelevant.  Each pop3 mailbox had its own
 > > (optional) procmailrc.
 > 
 > I fail to see how you cannot understand that my position of having to
 > filter from a single source is a problem by pointing out...  I can filter!  

B:"The fireswamp? We'll never survive!"
W:"You only say that because no one ever has."

My impression is that you think that to get mail from several sources
with fetchmail and have it put into separate folders requires that you
dump it into a single file and then filter using regular expressions
in procmail.  And that every time you add yourself to a mailing list
you'd have to add that mailing list to the regular expressions in
order to get that mail into the appropriate folder.  Is that what you
think?  It's not true.  Here is a tiny fetchmail configuration that
uses procmail, but does not even require a procmail configuration
file, and therefore has no regular expressions, much less any to
modify, to put mail from separate mail accounts into separate folders
on your local machine.  Mail from separate accounts *never* gets
merged into a single source from which it needs to be filtered.

.fetchmailrc
--
poll $MAILHOST proto pop3
mda "procmail DEFAULT=$HOME/Mail/$MAILHOST"
--

Invoke it as "MAILHOST=work fetchmail" and it will get your mail from
the server work and put it into the file (folder) called work.  Invoke
it as "MAILHOST=friend fetchmail" and it will put it into a file
called friend.  As long as the mail comes from a particular server, it
will go into a particular folder.  Point your mail client at the
resultant folders.  You also need to add user and password info to
.fetchmailrc or have a .netrc file (better).

Extensions to allow the folder to have a different name than the mail
server, and to invoke fetchmail just once for all your mail servers,
are obvious.  The above assumes one account per mail server, but that
is not hard to relax, either.

Beyond this, yes, your mail clients need to go beyond treating the
files as separate folders of a single account to treating them as the
inboxes of separate mail accounts, but I agree with you that that is a
problem of the mail clients.  As others have pointed out, you can
configure existing mail clients to send it out via the correct server
with hooks attached to the folders.  That sounds darn close to what
you want.  We are all looking forward to trying out the mail client
you build that does exactly what you want - I would like the Emacs
version :-)

I don't understand why you object to your mail client invoking an
instance of, say, sendmail in order to contact the appropriate
outgoing server for the particular message you are sending.  Some
process has to contact that server using SMTP, why build SMTP into a
mail client when there is already an existing program that does that?

-- 
Neil L. Roeth
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Wednesday, August 23, 2000, 12:30:25 PM, Matthew wrote:
> This level of modularization offers far more power and flexibility, as it
> becomes easier to implement new features and capabilities (as the amount of
> code that has to be re-implemented from application to application is
> greatly reduced).

OTOH you must agree that there is some point where breaking it down can
get too far.

- --
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- ---+-

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 6.5i

iQA/AwUBOaV4Dnpf7K2LbpnFEQIUkgCfcFQLWHW8ndjrqlCxPoEBfcJ1bmcAn2vc
ZXfcUwuQAVhfocp/JxBp91VZ
=ozcg
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Wednesday, August 23, 2000, 5:33:38 PM, John wrote:
> *sigh* bosses, bosses, bosses.  All other arguments in this thread
> aside, this one is a bit weird.  Does your boss realise that any
> non-local mail you send via your work SMTP server will be handed,
> unencrypted and with only the most rudimentary checks, to an outside
> SMTP server for forwarding or delivery?

Yes.  He is also aware that 99% of all business mail between employees
aren't over the internet in general and set policy to reduce the number of
steps outside.

- --
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- ---+-

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 6.5i

iQA/AwUBOaV3aHpf7K2LbpnFEQItdQCfQ5cdIj1CcAAcMnrT1ap1TxsrzWQAniLP
1HLElVau3CQhIwmUkg8BFM5S
=3DUC
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[John Pearson]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 10:39:01PM -0700, Seth Cohn wrote
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, John Pearson wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:31:07AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote
> > > Technically, yes.  However, if your boss says that work email is not 
> > > to
> > > touch outside SMTP servers as a matter of policy how far do you think 
> > > "Well,
> > > the SMTP server will route it correctly anyway, that is what they do" will
> > > fly?  There are reasons other than technical to different servers.
> > 
> > *sigh* bosses, bosses, bosses.  All other arguments in this thread
> > aside, this one is a bit weird.  Does your boss realise that any 
> > non-local mail you send via your work SMTP server will be handed,
> > unencrypted and with only the most rudimentary checks, to an outside
> > SMTP server for forwarding or delivery?
> 
> Um, reverse that.  Steve was saying _work_ email touching _outside_
> servers.  In other words, company email shouldn't pass thru outside mail
> servers.  This is actually a sound practice, if a bit paranoid, but I can
> understand the requirement.
> 

My misunderstanding.  To me, work email is email either to or
from work.  Even so, if they don't trust an ISP to recieve and
forward mail, they have little reason to trust it to receive and
forward packets.

> I might have plonked Steve, but don't misstate what he asked.
> 

Never my intention.


John P.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.mdt.net.au/~john Debian Linux admin & support:technical services

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[brian moore]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 10:39:01PM -0700, Seth Cohn wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, John Pearson wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:31:07AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote
> > > Technically, yes.  However, if your boss says that work email is not 
> > > to
> > > touch outside SMTP servers as a matter of policy how far do you think 
> > > "Well,
> > > the SMTP server will route it correctly anyway, that is what they do" will
> > > fly?  There are reasons other than technical to different servers.
> > 
> > *sigh* bosses, bosses, bosses.  All other arguments in this thread
> > aside, this one is a bit weird.  Does your boss realise that any 
> > non-local mail you send via your work SMTP server will be handed,
> > unencrypted and with only the most rudimentary checks, to an outside
> > SMTP server for forwarding or delivery?
> 
> Um, reverse that.  Steve was saying _work_ email touching _outside_
> servers.  In other words, company email shouldn't pass thru outside mail
> servers.  This is actually a sound practice, if a bit paranoid, but I can
> understand the requirement.
> 
> I might have plonked Steve, but don't misstate what he asked.

Except the policy should be 'through outside networks' if they're
serious about it.

(Although your local ISP probably couldn't care less what the contents
of your mail are... if they have a different user that's been naughty,
perhaps the feds are using their new toys to snoop email even if it
doesn't touch the ISP's server.)

-- 
Brian Moore   | Of course vi is God's editor.
  Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting
  Usenet Vandal   |  for it to load on the seventh day.
  Netscum, Bane of Elves.

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Seth Cohn]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, John Pearson wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:31:07AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote
> > Technically, yes.  However, if your boss says that work email is not to
> > touch outside SMTP servers as a matter of policy how far do you think "Well,
> > the SMTP server will route it correctly anyway, that is what they do" will
> > fly?  There are reasons other than technical to different servers.
> 
> *sigh* bosses, bosses, bosses.  All other arguments in this thread
> aside, this one is a bit weird.  Does your boss realise that any 
> non-local mail you send via your work SMTP server will be handed,
> unencrypted and with only the most rudimentary checks, to an outside
> SMTP server for forwarding or delivery?

Um, reverse that.  Steve was saying _work_ email touching _outside_
servers.  In other words, company email shouldn't pass thru outside mail
servers.  This is actually a sound practice, if a bit paranoid, but I can
understand the requirement.

I might have plonked Steve, but don't misstate what he asked.

Seth

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[John Pearson]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:31:07AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 09:27:40AM -0400, David Zoll wrote:
[snip-o-rama]
> > Which can then route the mail to the appropriate mail server.  This is
> > how SMTP was designed to work.
> 
> Technically, yes.  However, if your boss says that work email is not to
> touch outside SMTP servers as a matter of policy how far do you think "Well,
> the SMTP server will route it correctly anyway, that is what they do" will
> fly?  There are reasons other than technical to different servers.
> 

*sigh* bosses, bosses, bosses.  All other arguments in this thread
aside, this one is a bit weird.  Does your boss realise that any 
non-local mail you send via your work SMTP server will be handed,
unencrypted and with only the most rudimentary checks, to an outside
SMTP server for forwarding or delivery?


John P.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.mdt.net.au/~john Debian Linux admin & support:technical services

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Matthew Sackman]

> No, I mean exactly what an MUA says it is.  Mutt is an MUA but, to me,
it
> is not a mail client.  A mail client is able to transfer and manipulate
the
> required data without need of other programs.  A constant example I give,
> which is flawed as all are, is web browsing.  A web browser is, for the
most
> part, an HTTP client.  We have the HTTP server and the HTTP client talking
to
> one another directly.  We don't have an HTTP transport agent to get the
data
> to the HTTP user agent.  Again, example, it is flawed, but it gets the
basic
> point across.



It may interest you to know that there are many different ways to skin a
cat. Clearly none of the ways currently available suit you 100% (or even
60%). However, it may interest you to know that in general, the
modularization and breakdown of processes into many separate methods is
generally thought to be A Good Thing. It is because of this that we have
(for example) Micro Kernels. You may be further interested to know that
under RISC OS, the entire web-browsing mechanics are as broken down as email
is under Linux - you literally do have to have around 3-4 different
processes running, which all communicate with each other to get the job
done.

This level of modularization offers far more power and flexibility, as it
becomes easier to implement new features and capabilities (as the amount of
code that has to be re-implemented from application to application is
greatly reduced). I am far happier using a console mode MUA under Linux than
I am using Outlook Express because I have far more 'nitty-gritty' control
over what is going on.

I may remind you that Linux is first and foremost a server OS. It is also a
programmer's OS. As such, people who are not prepared to while away hundreds
of hours reading man pages and docs and do not have an almost fundamental
understanding of the OS are not going to find Linux a rewarding experience.
Therefore, the attitude is, and will remain to be for some time, 'if it
doesn't do what you want, make it do it yourself'.

Matthew

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Mark Brown]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:10:16AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:

> Close, but not perfect.  They insist on sending everything out a single
> SMTP server.

This requirement I really don't get: what practical difference does it make?

-- 
Mark Brown  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 09:27:40AM -0400, David Zoll wrote:
> there is a third choice (and I don't mean something that filters but
> calls it something else), I'd love to hear about it.

Simply stated, one program that has two instances in itself.  Like an
editor which can edit two buffers at the same time.

> > Add a new filter to my work account set of filters.
 
> Only if you want it in a subfolder in your work account mail directory. 
> I've seen no option on any client that would avoid this step.

Really?  How, then, will it get into the default work directory if I don't
set up a filter?  How will it be caught by my current set of filters if it
already isn't there?

> > Add a folder definition into Mutt just to keep it straight.
 
> What do you mean a "Folder definition"?  Provided you use subdirectories
> sanely, you can use one set of folder-hooks for an entire accounts worth
> of subfolders, and only need to add one if you need something special
> for a specific subfolder.

True.  This was written before I was made aware of that feature of mutt.
Let's just say I consider one of the many failings of mutt that many of the
"hey, cool!" features are impossible to find by playing with the product which
is the exact opposite of my experience with other similar products.

> > Still send mail out my home SMTP server.
 
> Which can then route the mail to the appropriate mail server.  This is
> how SMTP was designed to work.

Technically, yes.  However, if your boss says that work email is not to
touch outside SMTP servers as a matter of policy how far do you think "Well,
the SMTP server will route it correctly anyway, that is what they do" will
fly?  There are reasons other than technical to different servers.

> Alternately: "folder-hook  sendmail ". 
> You just put in one of those lines for each separate account.

I fail to see how this would have mutt send mail to my corporate SMTP
server which is over the net.  Are you suggesting I now write a small wrapper
to do the dumb forwarding over the network?  Not beyond my capabilities by any
means but foolish to require most people to do that for such a simple task.
 
> > It is a bear to configure every time something changes,
 
> Not really, most changes should just work; others, change a line or two
> and you're done.  The only change that will be a bear is adding,
> removing or moving an entire account.  If those change often, work on an
> automation script, shouldn't be hard.

This is unacceptable.  Changes in 2-3 different locations and if you want
to do it often, script it on your own.  I'm sorry but any heavily used process
should already have an interface to change it easily or have sane defaults.
Neither of which are present here.

> > it doesn't keep it all separate, COMPLETELY SEPARATE.  That is unacceptable.
 
> The mailboxes are separate, the outgoing mail is separate, the headers
> are separate; hell, even the user interface can be separaete if you want
> to be perverse about it.  What more do you want to separate?

Only after massive arm-twisting, a mind boggling complex configuration and
it still has problems with separate SMTP servers and other such things.
Meanwhile what I am used to does all of that as the default course.  It is
separate.  You want to mix it up, forward from one account to the other but
until you do it doesn't mix it up for you because each account is, as it
should be, completely separate.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 10:00:54AM -0400, David Zoll wrote:
> OK, I've gone and looked at the websites for those two products.  I
> can't really test either effectively in the real world since:
>   * both cost money I'm not willing to spend on this, and;

The Bat! has a 30 day trial period, PMMail has a 45-day trial period.  One
need not spend money to try them out.  You can say that of, oh, Eudroa Pro,
but not those two.

>   * neither appears to support IMAP, so I'd have to completly redo how I
> manage mail just to evaluate the products;

PMMail does not, TB! does.  However, given that there hasn't been a decent
client for IMAP yet that isn't much of a concern nor does that prevent you
from downloading them and playing with them in a sandbox account to see how
they do things.

>   * Both use filters heavily, so I am officially confused as to what
> your problem with filtering is

Notice that filtering comes after the separation of the accounts, not as
part of the process of separating the accounts.  Simply stated, if you didn't
filter the mail the incoming mail on each account would be separate as the
default behavior instead of jumbled together.  Also all outgoing mail is kept
separate as the default.  All settings are separate as a default.

>   * PMMail in particular shows mailboxes organized exactly the way I was
> suggesting

But does that as default instead of having to be arm-twisted into it.
Hmm, and they decided to change the home page on me.  Hate it when they do
that.

>   * Both look easier to configure than what I was suggesting

O-bing.

>   * Both look less powerful and feature-rich than what I was suggesting

I don't see it that way.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 07:50:27AM -0400, Cory Snavely wrote:
> If that's the case, how far is Netscape Communicator from doing what you
> want (using IMAP)? Have as many IMAP accounts as you want (Netscape
> doesn't seem to consider them folders), plus a folder structure for
> each, distinct Inboxes and Trash, plus a local folder structure in case
> you want that.

Close, but not perfect.  They insist on sending everything out a single
SMTP server.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[David Zoll]

Steve Lamb wrote:
[snip]
> I have been specific.  I have even given examples!  PMMail and The Bat!
> Screen shots alone for those two products speak volumes!

OK, I've gone and looked at the websites for those two products.  I
can't really test either effectively in the real world since:
  * both cost money I'm not willing to spend on this, and;
  * neither appears to support IMAP, so I'd have to completly redo how I
manage mail just to evaluate the products;

>From what I can see from the websites, however:
  * Both use filters heavily, so I am officially confused as to what
your problem with filtering is
  * PMMail in particular shows mailboxes organized exactly the way I was
suggesting
  * Both look easier to configure than what I was suggesting
  * Both look less powerful and feature-rich than what I was suggesting

Of course, your mileage may vary.
-Gleef

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[David Zoll]

Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:33:48PM -0400, David Zoll wrote:
[snip]
> >   1) Fetchmail, which will grab the mail from separate accounts, and
> > stuff it through...
> 
> Requires filtering to separate out accounts which should be separate in
> the first place.

The way I see it, you have two choices.  Use separate tasks for each
mail account, or use one task for all accounts and perform a process
that could be labeled "filtering".  Fetchmail offers both options.  If
there is a third choice (and I don't mean something that filters but
calls it something else), I'd love to hear about it.

[snip]
> >   3) Procmail, which will easily organize your email into whatever
> > structure you see fit, with plenty of folders and subfolders for...
> 
>...also does filtering, no need for procmail.

True, procmail is in many ways redundant here, but it offers much more
flexibility than any other option I've seen, and it's easy to configure
quickly.

 
> >   4) Mutt, which can either be set up with an bunch of folder-hook
> > commands to change your settings based on which account's email you are
> > looking at, or with a different muttrc for each account and run with
> > "mutt -M ~/.muttrc-", depending on how you want to use it.  Use
> > aliases to keep the command lines easy to remember and type.
> 
> A bunch of folder hook commands or have to use a separate instance
> completely.
> 
> So each time I sign up for a new mailing list on my work account, for
> example, I need to:
> 
> Add a new filter to my work account set of filters.

Only if you want it in a subfolder in your work account mail directory. 
I've seen no option on any client that would avoid this step.


> Add a folder definition into Mutt just to keep it straight.

What do you mean a "Folder definition"?  Provided you use subdirectories
sanely, you can use one set of folder-hooks for an entire accounts worth
of subfolders, and only need to add one if you need something special
for a specific subfolder.


> Still send mail out my home SMTP server.

Which can then route the mail to the appropriate mail server.  This is
how SMTP was designed to work.
Alternately: "folder-hook  sendmail ". 
You just put in one of those lines for each separate account.


> > The only downside I see with the above is it's a bear to configure
> > initially.  It should be a SMOP to write a script or a GUI druid to
> > automate such configurations.
> 
> It is a bear to configure every time something changes,

Not really, most changes should just work; others, change a line or two
and you're done.  The only change that will be a bear is adding,
removing or moving an entire account.  If those change often, work on an
automation script, shouldn't be hard.


> it doesn't keep it all separate, COMPLETELY SEPARATE.  That is unacceptable.

The mailboxes are separate, the outgoing mail is separate, the headers
are separate; hell, even the user interface can be separaete if you want
to be perverse about it.  What more do you want to separate?


> > If this isn't enough power for you, what more do you want?  There's
> > probably a solution, but you have to be specific as to your needs.  If
> > you can't express what you want, "Too bad" is all that can really be
> > said without you paying someone.
> 
> I have been specific.  I have even given examples!  PMMail and The Bat!
> Screen shots alone for those two products speak volumes!

I must have missed that.  I will look for those packages.

Best of Luck,
-Gleef

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Cory Snavely]

Steve Lamb wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 12:02:00PM -0500, Mark Schiltz wrote:
> >
> > After hashing through all your comments, I believe I know what you want.
> >
> > An email client that has a folder for [EMAIL PROTECTED] & [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> > etc. (but dosn't call it a folder) with sub-folders for inbox,outbox,etc. 
> > (its
> > ok to call these folders) for each of the above non-folders. Does that about
> > sum it up?
> 
> Yes, completely separate mail accounts.  That is exactly it.  My apologies
> if I was too vague in my descriptions.

If that's the case, how far is Netscape Communicator from doing what you
want (using IMAP)? Have as many IMAP accounts as you want (Netscape
doesn't seem to consider them folders), plus a folder structure for
each, distinct Inboxes and Trash, plus a local folder structure in case
you want that.

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 02:05:35AM -0700, brian moore wrote:
> You're the one that keeps bringing up 'accounts'.  I keep asking what the
> concept of an 'account' has to do with mailboxes.

Mail account.

> Again, Steve, I have accounts on machines with no mailboxes.  I have
> mailboxes on machines with no accounts.  I have MULTIPLE mailboxes on
> machines with a single account.
 
> You do NOT read from a pop3 'account', you read from a pop3 MAILBOX.

And?  A mail account can have sources from multuple "mailboxes" and a user
account can have multiple mail accounts.
 
> Hell, I'm smart enough to a) spot private replies and reply to them
> privately.  *Hint* my last mail to you was private.

Hint, I figured it would have been to the list if I hadn't fat fingered my
reply.

> And b) I'm smart enough to only send each mail once, instead of mailing
> it once as a private reply and then sending the exact same thing to a
> list.

Well, considering I have on every other message, one might reasonable
surmise it was a mistake.

> Heck, I'm even smart enough to NOT cc people on list mail unless they've
> requested it.
 
> Howzabout you Steve?

Sorry, I'm not a machine like you that never, ever, EVER makes a mistake.

> What seperates 'cat' from an MDA?  cat doesn't know about dotlocks or
> flock() or any of the other tricks expected of an MDA.  That's it.

Interesting all, really.  None of which states that Exim doesn't fill the
MDA role.  I still await your points addressing that.

> In fact, of course, the reason for a seperate root account IS for
> accounting.  Go look up words like 'accountability'.

Oh, gee, and you were talking about my loaded words.  What do most people
think of when you say accounting?  Especially in or near a sentence with
"pay".
 
> Because this 'workstation' also happens to be a server?  Why forward it
> to another machine?

   Just because you don't have a reason and find it silly does not mean there
isn't a reason for it or that other people don't have those needs.

> (Of course, I -could- if I wanted to, but that would be silly.)

Maybe in your situation.  Silly in all situations?
 
> [*]
> Score: -
> %Expires: 
> Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 
> %Score created by slrn on Wed Jul 15 10:39:39 1998
 
> An honored spot.

Really?  Wonder if you have [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] as well.  

> Yes, I should remember the words of WSB: "Never proffer sympathy to the
> mentally ill, for theirs is a bottomless pit."  (From "Words of Advice to
> Young People").

You know, people who stoutly refuse that there is a problem when there so
clearly is are often considered mentally ill.  There is a problem in this
scheme, Brian, no matter what your never-make-a-mistake self might think.
I'll take your advice and consider you mentally ill from now on and act
accordingly.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[brian moore]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:04:31AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 12:34:17AM -0700, brian moore wrote:
> > And I fail to see how a single fetchmail process reading from n servers,
> > with m mailboxes on each, and delivering each remote mailbox to some
> > number greater than m boxes on your machine is anything but what you
> > asked for.
> 
> I fail to see that happening in any manner I found acceptable.  You keep
> forgetting the MUA aspect where there is no concept of separate accounts.

Huh?

You're the one that keeps bringing up 'accounts'.  I keep asking what the
concept of an 'account' has to do with mailboxes.

Again, Steve, I have accounts on machines with no mailboxes.  I have
mailboxes on machines with no accounts.  I have MULTIPLE mailboxes on
machines with a single account.

You do NOT read from a pop3 'account', you read from a pop3 MAILBOX.

> > > Exim /IS/ an MDA.  It doesn't come with an MDA, it fills that role.
>  
> > No.  Exim is an MTA.
> 
> *sigh*  Are you really that stupid, Brian?  I mean, really?

Hell, I'm smart enough to a) spot private replies and reply to them
privately.  *Hint* my last mail to you was private.

And b) I'm smart enough to only send each mail once, instead of mailing
it once as a private reply and then sending the exact same thing to a
list.

Heck, I'm even smart enough to NOT cc people on list mail unless they've
requested it.

Howzabout you Steve?

> If you wish to refute this claim, please provide your reasonings.  I'm
> eager to understand why you think it doesn't fill the MDA role.

Filtering has NOTHING to do with "is this an MTA".

I have body filters in sendmail.  I may play with them in postfix
Does that make sendmail an MDA?  Or postfix?  No.

Both DO come with MDA's though (mail.local or just plain local,
respectively).

So what makes an MDA an MDA?  Hint it's the D.

Part of the reason none of what you're saying makes sense is because you
insist on redefining terms to suit your own ends.

What seperates 'cat' from an MDA?  cat doesn't know about dotlocks or
flock() or any of the other tricks expected of an MDA.  That's it.

> > Again. the terms are loaded.  I have -no- accounts.  (Accounts are for,
> > well, accounting, and I don't pay for them.)  I have an infinite number
> > of email addresses, of which maybe a dozen or two I use regularly.
> 
> Don't play ignorant with me.  This is getting tiring.  Fine, if accounts
> are for accounting and you pay for all accounts then why do you have a root
> accounts on your box?  And a nobody account.  Oh, I guess that means you /ARE/
> familiar with the term accounts separate of the billing processes of a
> business.

And seperate from the concept of mailboxes.  Why does root not have a
mailbox?  Nor nobody?

In fact, of course, the reason for a seperate root account IS for
accounting.  Go look up words like 'accountability'.

> Fine.  A mail account, to me, is a separate set of folders, filters, and
> settings indpenedant of any other mail account.  In fact, I have stated that
> several times.  I fail to see how it is a loaded term when I have explained it
> numerous times.

Because 'settings' is a client issue.

Filters can be applied at many stages (some long before the MDA even gets
a chance to see it).  Heck, my best filters are well out of the range of
any mail client unless it contains a web browser, since their
configuration is on a web page.

> > 'proper'?  Um, why is my SMTP server not proper?  Should I change smtp
> > servers based on 'From:'?  Goodness, that would be silly -- why on earth
> > would I want to, when this machine is quite capable of handling mail
> > itself.
> 
> Because the assumption is that your machine can handle mail at all.  It
> should not be a requirement to set up a local SMTP server to handle mail on a
> workstation.  The MTA would be using a smart host setup.  IE, blidnly
> forwarding all mail to another SMTP server.  Well, why not have the client
> send to that server.  That /is/ why it is client/server and why most clients
> can connect to multiple servers.  

Because this 'workstation' also happens to be a server?  Why forward it
to another machine?

(Of course, I -could- if I wanted to, but that would be silly.)

> Uhm, I /have/.  I distictly remember posting to usenet ASCII graphs of the
> differences to COLM.  Problem is Deja is no longer keeping comprehensive
> archives and it is no longer there.

[*]
Score: -
%Expires: 
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>

%Score created by slrn on Wed Jul 15 10:39:39 1998

An honored spot.

> > I highly doubt that everyone is as stupid as you think they are.
> 
> Given that you're claiming to have followed my discussions on this topic
> across different venues and say that I haven't done what I know I have I'm
> more likely to believe people are stupid than you might think.  Esp. when
> people come in at the middle and propose something I have shot down five ti

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 09:21:58AM +0930, John Pearson wrote:
> Well, that certainly indicates one reason why I'm having difficulty coming
> to grips with your requirement; we have a problem over terminology.

Actually, we don't.  The problem is that people aren't willing to look
past the terminology.  For instance, your examples below have a flaw in them.

> I differentiate between MUAs, MDAs, and MTAs; examples are:
>   MUA:  mutt
>   MDA:  procmail
>   MTA:  exim

MTA: Exim.  Exim does not need an MDA as it fills that role as well.  So
it could be something like this:

MUA: mutt
MDA/MTA: exim

> Obviously, you mean something different to MUA to me (and, perhaps, others);
> what, in your view is an MUA if not a mail client?

No, I mean exactly what an MUA says it is.  Mutt is an MUA but, to me, it
is not a mail client.  A mail client is able to transfer and manipulate the
required data without need of other programs.  A constant example I give,
which is flawed as all are, is web browsing.  A web browser is, for the most
part, an HTTP client.  We have the HTTP server and the HTTP client talking to
one another directly.  We don't have an HTTP transport agent to get the data
to the HTTP user agent.  Again, example, it is flawed, but it gets the basic
point across.

A mail client does most, if not all, of the tasks defined as an MUA and
most, of not all, of the tasks of an MDA with some minor tasks relegated to an
MTA.  Let me try to explain.

MUA: Program to manipulate the mail databases, filter through them, display
them and perform functions upon them as well as limited support functions to
help in that main task.  IE, reading, replying, deleting, moving messages
around are all the main task and the address book, for example, would be a
support function.  Editing text, spell checking, contact lists, etc are all
separate applications and, to me, are not part of the MUA.

Do you feel this adiquately describes the majority of functions of mutt?

MDA: Program to deliver mail to the local system in accordance with any
directives given.  This includes any file locking specific to the file system,
filtering that is requested from the user(s) as well as system
administrator(s) and so on.

Exim's MDA portion and procmail?

MTA: Program to deliver mail to external sources as well as accept mail from
external sources for later redistribution to either the local system or
another, external system.

Exim's MTA section, Sendmail?


Now, let's look at what the mail clients, not MUAs, do.  We'll keep it to
a single mail account for simplicity and to set aside the whole issue of how
to handle multiple mail accounts.  A mail account, as I described to Brian
earlier, is a collection of folders, filters and settings that are independant
of other mail accounts.

A mail client attaches to a remote server and pulls the mail down.  This
is, technicaly, MTA.  Once it has the mail it applies a series of filters to
it (MDA) and stores it in local folders (MDA).  There it allows the user to
read, reply to, move and delete those messages (MUA) as well as other support
functions (MUA).  When they send a message out the client once again connects
to a remote server and hands off the mail for delivery (MTA).

Now, adding multiple mail accounts back in I feel that a mail client
should be able to do that for each mail account with each having its own set
of incoming and outgoing servers, filters, folders, settings and so on.  This
means a single instance keeps the sent mail separate, uses different SMTP
servers dependant on mail account (which is independant of mail addresses and
local accounts), to the point where a mail account can and should be able to
be moved from one machine or local account (local = user, to clarify) without
problem.  That is different than the "personalities" paradigm which does not
separate out sent mail, use separate SMTP servers and otherwise does not keep
the incoming mail separate as the default.  

Anyway, getting back to the question(s) about MUA/MDA/MTA and mail client. 
I feel there is a difference between the MUA and a mail client.  I do not see
a problem with a mail client incorporating portions of other roles because
they logically fit together in certain circumstances.  The MUA/MDA/MTA
divisions were made in the day when there were multiple (dozens to thousands)
of people on a single machine and a single mail account as associated with a
single local user account.  I'm going to assume that anyone still interested
in this thread knows why that is the case.  If not there is good reading in
the bat book on the subject.

However, that is not the only case today.  I feel that the MTA/MDA/MUA
division is overkill for a single person on a single box.  There is no need to
set up an MTA in that case.  It will be running in smarthost mode forwarding
all mail to another SMTP server to do the actual delivery.  I am certainly not
advocating a complete MTA be programm

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 12:34:17AM -0700, brian moore wrote:
> And I fail to see how a single fetchmail process reading from n servers,
> with m mailboxes on each, and delivering each remote mailbox to some
> number greater than m boxes on your machine is anything but what you
> asked for.

I fail to see that happening in any manner I found acceptable.  You keep
forgetting the MUA aspect where there is no concept of separate accounts.

> > Exim /IS/ an MDA.  It doesn't come with an MDA, it fills that role.
 
> No.  Exim is an MTA.

*sigh*  Are you really that stupid, Brian?  I mean, really?

Read that sentence again.  Did I say it wasn't an MTA?  No.  What did I
say?  I don't think it is that hard.  I said it is an MDA, that it fills that
role.  

If you actually pulled your head out of your butt long enough to read the
documentation of Exim you would find that a separate MDA is /not/ needed with
Exim because, this may sound like deja vu, it fills the role of an MDA. 

Put it another way it provides filters (in the .forward file) for people
to dictate how they want their mail delivered in a similar manner to procmail.
It doesn't need procmail.  It doesn't need any separate MDA.  

IE, it is an MTA and an MDA which is entirely consistant with what I said
above and what I have stated in the past.

If you wish to refute this claim, please provide your reasonings.  I'm
eager to understand why you think it doesn't fill the MDA role.

> Again. the terms are loaded.  I have -no- accounts.  (Accounts are for,
> well, accounting, and I don't pay for them.)  I have an infinite number
> of email addresses, of which maybe a dozen or two I use regularly.

Don't play ignorant with me.  This is getting tiring.  Fine, if accounts
are for accounting and you pay for all accounts then why do you have a root
accounts on your box?  And a nobody account.  Oh, I guess that means you /ARE/
familiar with the term accounts separate of the billing processes of a
business.

Fine.  A mail account, to me, is a separate set of folders, filters, and
settings indpenedant of any other mail account.  In fact, I have stated that
several times.  I fail to see how it is a loaded term when I have explained it
numerous times.
 
> 'proper'?  Um, why is my SMTP server not proper?  Should I change smtp
> servers based on 'From:'?  Goodness, that would be silly -- why on earth
> would I want to, when this machine is quite capable of handling mail
> itself.

Because the assumption is that your machine can handle mail at all.  It
should not be a requirement to set up a local SMTP server to handle mail on a
workstation.  The MTA would be using a smart host setup.  IE, blidnly
forwarding all mail to another SMTP server.  Well, why not have the client
send to that server.  That /is/ why it is client/server and why most clients
can connect to multiple servers.  

Furthermore, I never said based on the From: line, that is the
personalities paradigm which is flawed.  Based on which mail account you're
in.

To use your logic why would I want my work mail to touch my SMTP server
when my client is perfectly capable of connecting the work server and sending
mail through it.  Or, more to the point, the reverse.  Why should I put
personal mail through the work server when my client can contact my home
server and have the mail go out from there.

Ah, that brings up something you didn't think about, did it?  Pushing home
mail through work creates legal problems, doesn't it?  Yes, it does, as some
businesses have problems with non-work related mail travelling through their
servers.  Esp. at my work where there are corporate and public servers to
choose from.  I have to have control, at the mail account level, as described
above, which SMTP server to it for a variety of legal and security reasons.  

Yes, your machine is technically capable of handling the mail but is it
legally proper or the proper choice for security?  It may be, for you.  It
often is not for me which is why stuffing all mail under a single mail account
and splitting out on personalities (Eudora/Lookout! term and basically what
mutt does) is not an option.  Having separate local accounts for remote
mailboxes is also absurd since that /should/ be handled internally to the
client.  IE, why should I create 10 local accounts and have to log in 10 times
when it absolutely is not needed?
 
> > Oh jeez.  C'mon, Brian.  You've said you've been following me on this
> > issue for three years and you are now stating that I have not once in that
> > time ever described what was needed and why the current system fails?  Get
> > real!  I have drawn charts showing problems, I have described it in
> > detail, and if you looked at the bloody picture you'd understand what I
> > was getting at because it is evident in that picture!  Stop being
> > willfully ignorant!
 
> You haven't.  We went around in circles on lusenet before about this.

Uhm, I /h

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[John Pearson]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:36:14AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 07:21:38PM +0930, John Pearson wrote:
> > .forward file allows you to filter your mail into any number of
> > separate mailfolders at delivery time, based on a wide range of
> > criteria including the contents of the headers.
> 
> Now take it a step further, what do you do on the MUA (not mail client)
> side to address that?
> 

Well, that certainly indicates one reason why I'm having
difficulty coming to grips with your requirement; we have a
problem over terminology.

I differentiate between MUAs, MDAs, and MTAs; examples are:
  MUA:  mutt
  MDA:  procmail
  MTA:  exim

Obviously, you mean something different to MUA to me (and,
perhaps, others); what, in your view is an MUA if not a mail 
client?


John P.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.mdt.net.au/~john Debian Linux admin & support:technical services

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:53:43PM -0700, brian moore wrote:
> Huh?  From a single source?

Yes, a single source.  Fetchmail.

> Note that in my example (if you had bothered to read it), you would have
> seen that ~/.procmailrc was irrelevant.  Each pop3 mailbox had its own
> (optional) procmailrc.

I fail to see how you cannot understand that my position of having to
filter from a single source is a problem by pointing out...  I can filter!  

> You mean exim doesn't have an MDA?  How does mail get into your mailbox?
 
> Or do you mean "exim comes with its own MDA".
 
> There is a HUGE difference.

Exim /IS/ an MDA.  It doesn't come with an MDA, it fills that role.

> How insane?  You do the math:

That doesn't tell me jack nor does it state how many accounts you have.  I
have stated quite a but that the system, as proposed, is fine for a /single/
account but breaks down after that.

> Yes it does.  Are you telling me that my mail configuration doesn't
> work?  How the hell did I get this mail?  Am I just talking to the wall?
> (I may as well, be, but that's a different matter.)

You have not solved simple issues like sending out the proper SMTP server,
for example.  /YOUR/ configuration is, IMHO, substandard to mine.  It requires
/LESS/.

> You have done no such thing.  "Look at this picture!" is hardly a
> functional example.  It's not even a bloody mockup.  I'm -not- about to
> defile a system and pay for Windows to see what -you- want in a mail
> client.

Oh jeez.  C'mon, Brian.  You've said you've been following me on this
issue for three years and you are now stating that I have not once in that
time ever described what was needed and why the current system fails?  Get
real!  I have drawn charts showing problems, I have described it in detail,
and if you looked at the bloody picture you'd understand what I was getting at
because it is evident in that picture!  Stop being willfully ignorant!

> Well, quite frankly, whiney sods saying "Write code my way or I will
> continue to use Windows for mail!" aren't likely to make me care.  -You-
> have a very arrogant attitude, insisting that YOUR way is right and
> "fuck you if you don't agree with me!"

I have not insisted.  I have explained the differences, why the proposed
system fails, what the current alternatives are, why certain parts do and do
not work.  That is more than just insisting and being difficult.

> For many people, we have a multitude of mailboxes and addresses, yet we
> are able to make mail work just fine... even if you tell us we're
> imagining it.

Right, but you're doing it in a manner which can cause problems outside
the technical ones, down the line.  As I said, I have written volumes on this
manner in many different forums going so far as to even make ASCII diagrams of
the data flow, offer example programs (Don't want to run Windows, borrow a
friend's system for 1/2 hour.  Rumor has it that Windows is pretty easy to
find on people's machines), places to find the information and even after all
of that, when it is plain as day to most people that I talk to, you still want
/more/?

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[brian moore]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 08:21:53PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:21:15PM -0700, brian moore wrote:
> > Note that the "filtering" is done by fetchmail.  If you don't want
> > filters, then don't specify that portion of the command line.
> 
> Which proves my point that you need to filter from a single source.
> Completely stupid.

Huh?  From a single source?

No, unless you say "one fetchmail process" is a single source.  If you
want to run 30 invocations of fetchmail for no reason, I guess you
could, but I fail to see why "one single source" is relevant.

Note that in my example (if you had bothered to read it), you would have
seen that ~/.procmailrc was irrelevant.  Each pop3 mailbox had its own
(optional) procmailrc.

> > > >   3) Procmail, which will easily organize your email into whatever
> > > > structure you see fit, with plenty of folders and subfolders for...
>  
> > Well, you need a local delivery agent.  I guess you could use 'cat', but
> > since it doesn't handle file locking, it would be silly.
> 
> No, you don't.  Later in your message you get pissy that I don't learn the
> tools yet here you are telling me I need an MDA when Exim does that just fine?
> Oy.

You mean exim doesn't have an MDA?  How does mail get into your mailbox?

Or do you mean "exim comes with its own MDA".

There is a HUGE difference.

> > Only because you insist on being difficult.  It amazes me that in the
> > three years I've seen you whining about how all mail clients are
> > unworthy of you, you haven't actually bothered to figure out how to
> > adapt them to your needs.
> 
> *I* am being difficult?  I find it amazing that I have a set of tools that
> works perfectly on other platforms yet when I come here and am told to do
> everything the hardest way possible that *I* am the one being difficult!  Come
> off it, mail, as it stands, is the one being difficult!

No, the "hardest way for you", at best.  I find it quite easy to deal
with, and it works great for an insane amount of mail.

How insane?  You do the math:

[mailhost:~] 9:38:34pm 53 % head /var/mail/b/e/bem/inbox | grep X-IMAP
X-IMAP: 0943303633 419781

> > The above configuration works just fine for dealing with multiple
> > identities and settings.
> 
> No, it does /NOT/.  It amazes me than in the three years you've been
> reading me you still don't get it and STILL cannot come up with an acceptable
> answer.

Yes it does.  Are you telling me that my mail configuration doesn't
work?  How the hell did I get this mail?  Am I just talking to the wall?
(I may as well, be, but that's a different matter.)

> > Source speaks, not screen shots.
> 
> Point was that people are stating they don't know what I want when I am
> providing functional examples.

You have done no such thing.  "Look at this picture!" is hardly a
functional example.  It's not even a bloody mockup.  I'm -not- about to
defile a system and pay for Windows to see what -you- want in a mail
client.

> > If you don't like the way any mail client works, take the source and
> > make it work the way you want.
>  
> > -That- is what GNU/Linux is about.
> 
> No, that is /PART/ of what it is about.  That is not /ALL/ that it is
> about.  As stated a lot of people don't code.  You have a VERY elitist
> attitude when it is simply, "Do it the hard way or fuck you, learn to code."  

Well, quite frankly, whiney sods saying "Write code my way or I will
continue to use Windows for mail!" aren't likely to make me care.  -You-
have a very arrogant attitude, insisting that YOUR way is right and
"fuck you if you don't agree with me!"

Ever considered that since you've managed to baffle half the people you
whine at about your requirements, that your presentation is, um, lacking
or, perhaps more precisely, incoherent?

Why not sit down and write how you want mail to work.  Do it in more
than four paragraphs, and define your terms: many are loaded.  (What,
precisely, is a 'mailbox'?  How does it differ from a 'mail folder'?
What is its relation to an email address?)

For many people, we have a multitude of mailboxes and addresses, yet we
are able to make mail work just fine... even if you tell us we're
imagining it.

-- 
Brian Moore   | Of course vi is God's editor.
  Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting
  Usenet Vandal   |  for it to load on the seventh day.
  Netscum, Bane of Elves.

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:21:15PM -0700, brian moore wrote:
> Note that the "filtering" is done by fetchmail.  If you don't want
> filters, then don't specify that portion of the command line.

Which proves my point that you need to filter from a single source.
Completely stupid.

> > >   3) Procmail, which will easily organize your email into whatever
> > > structure you see fit, with plenty of folders and subfolders for...
 
> Well, you need a local delivery agent.  I guess you could use 'cat', but
> since it doesn't handle file locking, it would be silly.

No, you don't.  Later in your message you get pissy that I don't learn the
tools yet here you are telling me I need an MDA when Exim does that just fine?
Oy.

> Only because you insist on being difficult.  It amazes me that in the
> three years I've seen you whining about how all mail clients are
> unworthy of you, you haven't actually bothered to figure out how to
> adapt them to your needs.

*I* am being difficult?  I find it amazing that I have a set of tools that
works perfectly on other platforms yet when I come here and am told to do
everything the hardest way possible that *I* am the one being difficult!  Come
off it, mail, as it stands, is the one being difficult!

> The above configuration works just fine for dealing with multiple
> identities and settings.

No, it does /NOT/.  It amazes me than in the three years you've been
reading me you still don't get it and STILL cannot come up with an acceptable
answer.

> Source speaks, not screen shots.

Point was that people are stating they don't know what I want when I am
providing functional examples.

> If you don't like the way any mail client works, take the source and
> make it work the way you want.
 
> -That- is what GNU/Linux is about.

No, that is /PART/ of what it is about.  That is not /ALL/ that it is
about.  As stated a lot of people don't code.  You have a VERY elitist
attitude when it is simply, "Do it the hard way or fuck you, learn to code."  

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[brian moore]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 05:10:54PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:33:48PM -0400, David Zoll wrote:
> > OK, you want mail from separate accounts to be collected into separate
> > locations in one account, each with their own set of subfolders, and a
> > mail client which can understand this, and send outgoing mail
> > appropriately for the account whose mail it's looking at, potentially
> > changing everything from the signature file to the mail server.  How
> > does the following sound:
>
> Of course your falling into the "personailities" mentality.
>
> >   1) Fetchmail, which will grab the mail from separate accounts, and
> > stuff it through...
> 
> Requires filtering to separate out accounts which should be separate in
> the first place.

poll mailserver with pop3:
user fred
pass noway
mda "/usr/bin/procmail -d %T .filters/filters-for-fred"

poll mail2 with pop3:
user bob
pass nothere
mda "/usr/bin/procmail -d %T .filters/filters-for-bob"

etc, etc, etc.

Note that the "filtering" is done by fetchmail.  If you don't want
filters, then don't specify that portion of the command line.

> >   2) A MTA, any MTA.  I use exim, which will happily stuff the mails
> > through...
> 
> And, amazingly enough...
> 
> >   3) Procmail, which will easily organize your email into whatever
> > structure you see fit, with plenty of folders and subfolders for...

Well, you need a local delivery agent.  I guess you could use 'cat', but
since it doesn't handle file locking, it would be silly.

>...also does filtering, no need for procmail.

xfmail, as I recall, had okay filtering (or "views") but I dislike the
"dump everything into one mailbox and sort it when reading" concept.
I like my debian-user thrown into a different mailbox so I can read it
when I feel like it.

> >   4) Mutt, which can either be set up with an bunch of folder-hook
> > commands to change your settings based on which account's email you are
> > looking at, or with a different muttrc for each account and run with
> > "mutt -M ~/.muttrc-", depending on how you want to use it.  Use
> > aliases to keep the command lines easy to remember and type.
> 
> A bunch of folder hook commands or have to use a separate instance
> completely.  
> 
> So each time I sign up for a new mailing list on my work account, for
> example, I need to:
> 
> Add a new filter to my work account set of filters.
> Add a folder definition into Mutt just to keep it straight.
> Still send mail out my home SMTP server.

No.

You know you can set folder hooks based on path names?

>From my .muttrc:

# first, set our global defaults
folder-hook .   'source .mutt/standard-defaults'

# now handle special mailboxes...
folder-hook support 'source .mutt/support-defaults'
folder-hook Lists   'source .mutt/list-defaults'
folder-hook secure  'source .mutt/secure-defaults'
folder-hook news-admin  'source .mutt/news-defaults'
folder-hook '!' 'source .mutt/inbox-defaults'

# override anything specified above (like colors for Tags and Flags)
folder-hook .   'source .mutt/standard-defaults-override'

All my mailing list mail goes into ~/Mail/Lists/list-name, which the
lists-defaults handles for me.

So sort mail for your 'foo.com' account into ~/Mail/foo/, mail for
'example.com' into ~/Mail/example/ and let the folder hooks do their
thing when you change mailboxes.

You can also have mutt auto-find its lists:

mailboxes `echo ~/Mail/Lists/*`

> Contrast:
> Nothing.
> 
> > The only downside I see with the above is it's a bear to configure
> > initially.  It should be a SMOP to write a script or a GUI druid to
> > automate such configurations.
> 
> It is a bear to configure every time something changes, it doesn't keep it
> all separate, COMPLETELY SEPARATE.  That is unacceptable.

Only because you insist on being difficult.  It amazes me that in the
three years I've seen you whining about how all mail clients are
unworthy of you, you haven't actually bothered to figure out how to
adapt them to your needs.

The above configuration works just fine for dealing with multiple
identities and settings.

> > If this isn't enough power for you, what more do you want?  There's
> > probably a solution, but you have to be specific as to your needs.  If
> > you can't express what you want, "Too bad" is all that can really be
> > said without you paying someone.
> 
> I have been specific.  I have even given examples!  PMMail and The Bat!
> Screen shots alone for those two products speak volumes!

Source speaks, not screen shots.

If you don't like the way any mail client works, take the source and
make it work the way you want.

-That- is what GNU/Linux is about.

-- 
Brian Moore   | Of course vi is God's editor.
  Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting
  Us

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:33:48PM -0400, David Zoll wrote:
> OK, you want mail from separate accounts to be collected into separate
> locations in one account, each with their own set of subfolders, and a
> mail client which can understand this, and send outgoing mail
> appropriately for the account whose mail it's looking at, potentially
> changing everything from the signature file to the mail server.  How
> does the following sound:
   
Of course your falling into the "personailities" mentality.

>   1) Fetchmail, which will grab the mail from separate accounts, and
> stuff it through...

Requires filtering to separate out accounts which should be separate in
the first place.

>   2) A MTA, any MTA.  I use exim, which will happily stuff the mails
> through...

And, amazingly enough...

>   3) Procmail, which will easily organize your email into whatever
> structure you see fit, with plenty of folders and subfolders for...

   ...also does filtering, no need for procmail.

>   4) Mutt, which can either be set up with an bunch of folder-hook
> commands to change your settings based on which account's email you are
> looking at, or with a different muttrc for each account and run with
> "mutt -M ~/.muttrc-", depending on how you want to use it.  Use
> aliases to keep the command lines easy to remember and type.

A bunch of folder hook commands or have to use a separate instance
completely.  

So each time I sign up for a new mailing list on my work account, for
example, I need to:

Add a new filter to my work account set of filters.
Add a folder definition into Mutt just to keep it straight.
Still send mail out my home SMTP server.

Contrast:
Nothing.

> The only downside I see with the above is it's a bear to configure
> initially.  It should be a SMOP to write a script or a GUI druid to
> automate such configurations.

It is a bear to configure every time something changes, it doesn't keep it
all separate, COMPLETELY SEPARATE.  That is unacceptable.

> If this isn't enough power for you, what more do you want?  There's
> probably a solution, but you have to be specific as to your needs.  If
> you can't express what you want, "Too bad" is all that can really be
> said without you paying someone.

I have been specific.  I have even given examples!  PMMail and The Bat!
Screen shots alone for those two products speak volumes!

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[David Zoll]

Steve Lamb wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 11:41:17AM -0400, Brendan Cully wrote:
> > But you probably don't care about that. What I've learned from this
> > long and silly thread is there are plenty of ways to receive mail from
> > several accounts and keep them separated, but none that you like. Too
> > bad.
> 
> Great attitude there, "Too bad."

OK, you want mail from separate accounts to be collected into separate
locations in one account, each with their own set of subfolders, and a
mail client which can understand this, and send outgoing mail
appropriately for the account whose mail it's looking at, potentially
changing everything from the signature file to the mail server.  How
does the following sound:
  1) Fetchmail, which will grab the mail from separate accounts, and
stuff it through...
  2) A MTA, any MTA.  I use exim, which will happily stuff the mails
through...
  3) Procmail, which will easily organize your email into whatever
structure you see fit, with plenty of folders and subfolders for...
  4) Mutt, which can either be set up with an bunch of folder-hook
commands to change your settings based on which account's email you are
looking at, or with a different muttrc for each account and run with
"mutt -M ~/.muttrc-", depending on how you want to use it.  Use
aliases to keep the command lines easy to remember and type.

The only downside I see with the above is it's a bear to configure
initially.  It should be a SMOP to write a script or a GUI druid to
automate such configurations.

If this isn't enough power for you, what more do you want?  There's
probably a solution, but you have to be specific as to your needs.  If
you can't express what you want, "Too bad" is all that can really be
said without you paying someone.

-Gleef

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Joachim Trinkwitz]

Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 12:02:00PM -0500, Mark Schiltz wrote:
> > An email client that has a folder for [EMAIL PROTECTED] & [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> > etc. (but dosn't call it a folder) with sub-folders for inbox,outbox,etc. 
> > (its
> > ok to call these folders) for each of the above non-folders. Does that about
> > sum it up? 
> 
> Yes, completely separate mail accounts.  That is exactly it.

I think the pronto MUA can do what you want. Have a look at
. In woody there is a debian package.

Greetings,
joachim

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 12:02:00PM -0500, Mark Schiltz wrote:
> An email client that has a folder for [EMAIL PROTECTED] & [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> etc. (but dosn't call it a folder) with sub-folders for inbox,outbox,etc. (its
> ok to call these folders) for each of the above non-folders. Does that about
> sum it up? 

Yes, completely separate mail accounts.  That is exactly it.  My apologies
if I was too vague in my descriptions.
 
-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Mark Schiltz]

Steve,

After hashing through all your comments, I believe I know what you want.

An email client that has a folder for [EMAIL PROTECTED] & [EMAIL PROTECTED],
etc. (but dosn't call it a folder) with sub-folders for inbox,outbox,etc. (its
ok to call these folders) for each of the above non-folders. Does that about sum
it up? 


On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Steve Lamb wrote:

> The notion of mail accounts separate from local real accounts and a mail
> client (not MUA) which can handle multiple mail accounts (not mail from
> accounts dumped into different folders) in a reasonable manner.
>  
> -- 
>  Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
>  ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.

-- 
I'm here to paint but I've forgotten my brush...
You got beer?

Mark Schiltz

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 07:21:38PM +0930, John Pearson wrote:
> .forward file allows you to filter your mail into any number of
> separate mailfolders at delivery time, based on a wide range of
> criteria including the contents of the headers.

Now take it a step further, what do you do on the MUA (not mail client)
side to address that?

> If you don't want all mail delivered to a single mailbox, and you
> don't want mail delivered to several mailboxes belonging to
> different mail users, and you don't want mail delivered to
> several mailboxes all belonging to the same user, what is it you
> *do* want?

The notion of mail accounts separate from local real accounts and a mail
client (not MUA) which can handle multiple mail accounts (not mail from
accounts dumped into different folders) in a reasonable manner.
 
-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 11:41:17AM -0400, Brendan Cully wrote:
> But you probably don't care about that. What I've learned from this
> long and silly thread is there are plenty of ways to receive mail from
> several accounts and keep them separated, but none that you like. Too
> bad.

Great attitude there, "Too bad."

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Brendan Cully]

Of course you could also use fetchmail's "mda" option to make an
account be delivered to an arbitrary file.

But you probably don't care about that. What I've learned from this
long and silly thread is there are plenty of ways to receive mail from
several accounts and keep them separated, but none that you like. Too
bad.

On Tuesday, 22 August 2000 at 00:54, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 05:46:00PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > .fetchmailrc can have:
> > []
> > user x is mark here
> > []
> > user y is julie here
> 
> Requires a local account for what really isn't a separate account on the
> local machine.  This is a piss-poor hack.
> 
> > Alternatively, if you don't want separate acounts for work / home, you
> > can use an exim .forward file to filter and save your home stuff to a 
> > seperate mailbox file and mutt -f the file. Alternatively...
> 
> I have already addressed this in this thread.  IE, dumping all mail into a
> single account and then filtering out from there.  This is not acceptable.
> Again, a hack to the extreme.
>  

-- 
Don't make Godzilla mad!


pgphjnwBjCXTu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[markm]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 12:54:58AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 05:46:00PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > .fetchmailrc can have:
> > []
> > user x is mark here
> > []
> > user y is julie here
> 
> Requires a local account for what really isn't a separate account on the
> local machine.  This is a piss-poor hack.

Not if mark != julie. I was refering specifically to your statement
"Using fetchmail in the prescribed manner to get any sane results I /MUST/ 
mix the mail up."

> > Alternatively, if you don't want separate acounts for work / home, you
> > can use an exim .forward file to filter and save your home stuff to a 
> > seperate mailbox file and mutt -f the file. Alternatively...
> 
> I have already addressed this in this thread.  IE, dumping all mail into a
> single account and then filtering out from there.  This is not acceptable.
> Again, a hack to the extreme.

So, dumping the mail into separate accounts is a piss-poor hack.
Dumping all mail into a single account and then filtering out from there
is a hack to the extreme.

The only alternative options I can see rely on the client fetching mail: 
i) firing up multiple instances of your mail client with different 
configuration files. 
ii) having one mail client with separate 'folders' for different accounts
(not compatible with the local mail delivery system without extra work)

Why would these be so much less hackish?

It seems to be further from the unix paradigm to me. 

Have fun,
Mark.
[assuming that imap was not available to the original poster]

ps. If anyone was after instructions on allowing multiple users to use
one email account, look for stumpel.html at linux gazette. It's not
ideal, but may be of use.

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[John Pearson]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 12:54:58AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 05:46:00PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > .fetchmailrc can have:
> > []
> > user x is mark here
> > []
> > user y is julie here
> 
> Requires a local account for what really isn't a separate account on the
> local machine.  This is a piss-poor hack.
> 
> > Alternatively, if you don't want separate acounts for work / home, you
> > can use an exim .forward file to filter and save your home stuff to a 
> > seperate mailbox file and mutt -f the file. Alternatively...
> 
> I have already addressed this in this thread.  IE, dumping all mail into a
> single account and then filtering out from there.  This is not acceptable.
> Again, a hack to the extreme.
>  

Perhaps it would help if you re-stated what it is you want, and
explain why this isn't a part of the solution.  Using an Exim
.forward file allows you to filter your mail into any number of
separate mailfolders at delivery time, based on a wide range of
criteria including the contents of the headers.

If you don't want all mail delivered to a single mailbox, and you
don't want mail delivered to several mailboxes belonging to
different mail users, and you don't want mail delivered to
several mailboxes all belonging to the same user, what is it you
*do* want?


John P.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.mdt.net.au/~john Debian Linux admin & support:technical services

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Preben Randhol]

Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 22/08/2000 (09:58) :
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:52:08AM +0200, Preben Randhol wrote:
> > I think it is you that has done something wrong in the setup. 
> 
> No, I refuse to accept a mediocre solution.

Would you please explain how you would make the software then?

> > I have setup fetchmail on a machine to fetch mail for both users of that
> > machine from the ISP. One of the users even got a different username on
> > the local machine. No need to do filtering etc as you suggest.
> 
> So if I have 5 remote accounts I need to have 5 local accounts.  Am I the
> only one who thinks that is stupid?

I'm having a hard time understanding your problem. At one moment you say
that you download all mail to one account and then filter the mail to
the different accounts. In the next you suddenly want all your mail into
one account. PLease make up your mind about what your problem is!

What I consider a stupid solution is to have two different persons with
seperate ISP accounts reading eachothers mail. That is why I have setup
fetchmail to send the mail to each user.

-- 
Preben Randhol - Ph. D student - http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent", Isaac Asimov

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:52:08AM +0200, Preben Randhol wrote:
> I think it is you that has done something wrong in the setup. 

No, I refuse to accept a mediocre solution.

> I have setup fetchmail on a machine to fetch mail for both users of that
> machine from the ISP. One of the users even got a different username on
> the local machine. No need to do filtering etc as you suggest.

So if I have 5 remote accounts I need to have 5 local accounts.  Am I the
only one who thinks that is stupid?
 
-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 05:46:00PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> .fetchmailrc can have:
> []
> user x is mark here
> []
> user y is julie here

Requires a local account for what really isn't a separate account on the
local machine.  This is a piss-poor hack.

> Alternatively, if you don't want separate acounts for work / home, you
> can use an exim .forward file to filter and save your home stuff to a 
> seperate mailbox file and mutt -f the file. Alternatively...

I have already addressed this in this thread.  IE, dumping all mail into a
single account and then filtering out from there.  This is not acceptable.
Again, a hack to the extreme.
 
-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Preben Randhol]

Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 21/08/2000 (17:59) :
> Hate to tell you but fetchmail is not more elegant.  In fact, I find it
> quite archaic.  I don't know about you, but there is something about pulling 2
> accounts worth of mail, dumping them into a single local account and then have
> to filter it all out /and/ have to tell the mail client to use x account in y
> situation but not z that is quite inelegant.

I think it is you that has done something wrong in the setup. I have
setup fetchmail on a machine to fetch mail for both users of that
machine from the ISP. One of the users even got a different username on
the local machine. No need to do filtering etc as you suggest.

-- 
Preben Randhol - Ph. D student - http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent", Isaac Asimov

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[markm]

On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 10:50:18AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:

> Right, and have to stuff them into a single account to get at them with a
> single client.  That, to me, is inelegant.  For good reasons I do /not/ mix my
> personal and professional email.  Using fetchmail in the prescribed manner to
> get any sane results I /MUST/ mix the mail up.

huh?

.fetchmailrc can have:
[]
user x is mark here
[]
user y is julie here

to stick mail from  into user account mark and  into julie.

Alternatively, if you don't want separate acounts for work / home, you
can use an exim .forward file to filter and save your home stuff to a 
seperate mailbox file and mutt -f the file. Alternatively...

I have never user fetchmailconf, but perhaps this is limiting you.
.fetchmailrc is trivial to understand anyway...

HTH,
Mark.

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Monday, August 21, 2000, 12:44:11 PM, kmself wrote:
   
>> If it did do it I'd love to see the actual mail reading removed from the
>> editor.
   

> apt-get gnus

Package: gnus
Priority: optional
Section: news
Installed-Size: 4188
Maintainer: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Architecture: all
Version: 5.8.3-9
Provides: news-reader
Depends: emacs20 | xemacs20 | xemacs21, fileutils (>= 4.0)
 ^

Like I said, if it did that I'd love to see the actual mail reading
removed from the editor.  Clearly this is not the case so I fail to see what
you were getting at.

- --
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- ---+-

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 6.5i

iQA/AwUBOaGu73pf7K2LbpnFEQJOHwCg3jFKJ6cwZ6kFOVOLEfo0gdEF2/gAoML7
aSxDFW+bA9e6MHTwdXWBpDyY
=ADo1
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Monday, August 21, 2000, 2:14:00 PM, brian wrote:
> Considering that mutt doesn't do SMTP with anything, Steve's demand
> probably will never happen.

> (Though there are certainly ways to do it, the SMTP configuration ain't
> part of Mutt.)

Right.  To be honest I use mutt and like it for what it is.  I just don't
feel it fits what the original author of this thread wanted nor what I look
for in a client.  If I didn't have needs for a variety of multiple accounts I
would use mutt with abandon.

- --
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- ---+-

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 6.5i

iQA/AwUBOaGddXpf7K2LbpnFEQIevQCg3ZLIfbyKHDSbaY3avb1Cq4NrLrsAn1ZB
AM1cqPV+HpD48Yh7LIF/h2Ax
=rJDi
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Monday, August 21, 2000, 2:01:38 PM, Mike wrote:
> Oh, you meant actually send it out through different servers?  I thought you
> were just meaning the message addressing - i.e. what From: line is used.
> Seems I misunderstood exactly what you meant.

Gah, sorry for the tone.

This might not be what the original author intended so don't associate
me with him.  However, this is what I see as a failing.

Complete mail account separation.  Different incoming and outgoing
servers, different preferences, different folders, different filters, all down
the line.  The only common theme should be, IMHO, the interface.

The basic question is, of course, why should one have access to different
accounts in a single application?  In fact, it has been asked and answered
flippantly.  Let me give a better answer.

On my local machine I have, say, the account grey.  At work I have
slamb3.  On my friend's machine I have morpheus.  The latter two do not have
mappings into the local machine nor should they.  They also should not be
forced into the local machine's account since they are separate accounts.  I
may or may not have access to shells on those machines but I /do/ have acccess
to POP and SMTP.  It seems logical, to me, that a client (not MUA, I now,
after a few years, regard the two as different entities) should be able to
keep those account separate internally when needed.

- --
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- ---+-

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 6.5i

iQA/AwUBOaGdJXpf7K2LbpnFEQLAXQCfdCddQfntdjTOPUlOsggqOa2I2h4An0f0
zlsUttRQiOWV37SeG7K5bXTH
=ZTS3
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[brian moore]

On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:01:38PM -0400, Mike Werner wrote:
> Steve Lamb wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > Monday, August 21, 2000, 1:42:58 PM, Mike wrote:
> > > Wrong.  mutt can do that just fine.
> > 
> > Don't even try to kid me on that aspect ok?  The day mutt can send mail
> > out my work SMTP from home (yes, that level of separation) is the day I'll
> > concede.  Right now Mutt is most certainly not up to the task except in the
> > most archaic of senses.
> 
> Oh, you meant actually send it out through different servers?  I thought you
> were just meaning the message addressing - i.e. what From: line is used. 
> Seems I misunderstood exactly what you meant.

Considering that mutt doesn't do SMTP with anything, Steve's demand
probably will never happen.

(Though there are certainly ways to do it, the SMTP configuration ain't
part of Mutt.)

-- 
Brian Moore   | Of course vi is God's editor.
  Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting
  Usenet Vandal   |  for it to load on the seventh day.
  Netscum, Bane of Elves.

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Mike Werner]

Steve Lamb wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Monday, August 21, 2000, 1:42:58 PM, Mike wrote:
> > Wrong.  mutt can do that just fine.
> 
> Don't even try to kid me on that aspect ok?  The day mutt can send mail
> out my work SMTP from home (yes, that level of separation) is the day I'll
> concede.  Right now Mutt is most certainly not up to the task except in the
> most archaic of senses.

Oh, you meant actually send it out through different servers?  I thought you
were just meaning the message addressing - i.e. what From: line is used. 
Seems I misunderstood exactly what you meant.
-- 
Mike Werner  KA8YSD   | He that is slow to believe anything and
  | everything is of great understanding,
'91 GS500E| for belief in one false principle is the
Morgantown WV | beginning of all unwisdom.

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Monday, August 21, 2000, 1:42:58 PM, Mike wrote:
> Wrong.  mutt can do that just fine.

Don't even try to kid me on that aspect ok?  The day mutt can send mail
out my work SMTP from home (yes, that level of separation) is the day I'll
concede.  Right now Mutt is most certainly not up to the task except in the
most archaic of senses.

- --
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- ---+-

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 6.5i

iQA/AwUBOaGYgHpf7K2LbpnFEQI2uACePbqh2BoUreICQk9gZptfMDPwJdgAoIgq
8LAQdPDPsMD/NwsBacZmmW+0
=guOa
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Mike Werner]

Steve Lamb wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Monday, August 21, 2000, 10:11:17 AM, Michael wrote:
> > Also, you can grab pop mail from multiple servers if you're like the typical
> > guy and have 5+ mail addresses.
> 
> Right, and have to stuff them into a single account to get at them with a
> single client.  That, to me, is inelegant.  For good reasons I do /not/ mix my
> personal and professional email.  Using fetchmail in the prescribed manner to
> get any sane results I /MUST/ mix the mail up.  There simply is not a client
> for Linux which keeps accounts separate while allowing people to access
> multiple accounts at once.  Absurd.

Wrong.  mutt can do that just fine.
-- 
Mike Werner  KA8YSD   | He that is slow to believe anything and
  | everything is of great understanding,
'91 GS500E| for belief in one false principle is the
Morgantown WV | beginning of all unwisdom.

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[kmself]

On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 11:35:29AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:

> Monday, August 21, 2000, 11:11:42 AM, Mark wrote:
> > I strongly suspect that Gnus can do what you want, but I've not actually
> > tried.  It certainly supports multiple servers and folders and can
> > conditionally set headers based upon various criteria.
> 
> Actually, I will have to concede that.  I do believe it does.  However, I
> don't use EMACS so gnus is right out /and/ from what I've seen of it in action
> (a coworker uses it) I'm not sure I'd be too keen on it.  If it did do it I'd
> love to see the actual mail reading removed from the editor.

apt-get gnus

-- 
Karsten M. Self  http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
 Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?   Debian GNU/Linux rocks!
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org
GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0


pgp4Fs0yy1d87.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Monday, August 21, 2000, 11:11:42 AM, Mark wrote:
> I strongly suspect that Gnus can do what you want, but I've not actually
> tried.  It certainly supports multiple servers and folders and can
> conditionally set headers based upon various criteria.

Actually, I will have to concede that.  I do believe it does.  However, I
don't use EMACS so gnus is right out /and/ from what I've seen of it in action
(a coworker uses it) I'm not sure I'd be too keen on it.  If it did do it I'd
love to see the actual mail reading removed from the editor.

- --
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- ---+-

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 6.5i

iQA/AwUBOaF2dnpf7K2LbpnFEQLMfACg0qMtKlLFBed+uaraLVP3PKzntycAn3V+
sJwCxrVo/ZsVTyCNQWV//c7f
=kCct
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Mark Brown]

On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 10:50:18AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:

> Right, and have to stuff them into a single account to get at them with a
> single client.  That, to me, is inelegant.  For good reasons I do /not/ mix my
> personal and professional email.  Using fetchmail in the prescribed manner to
> get any sane results I /MUST/ mix the mail up.  There simply is not a client
> for Linux which keeps accounts separate while allowing people to access
> multiple accounts at once.  Absurd.

I strongly suspect that Gnus can do what you want, but I've not actually
tried.  It certainly supports multiple servers and folders and can
conditionally set headers based upon various criteria.

-- 
Mark Brown  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/


pgpzjqhdk31Vb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Monday, August 21, 2000, 10:11:17 AM, Michael wrote:
> Also, you can grab pop mail from multiple servers if you're like the typical
> guy and have 5+ mail addresses.

Right, and have to stuff them into a single account to get at them with a
single client.  That, to me, is inelegant.  For good reasons I do /not/ mix my
personal and professional email.  Using fetchmail in the prescribed manner to
get any sane results I /MUST/ mix the mail up.  There simply is not a client
for Linux which keeps accounts separate while allowing people to access
multiple accounts at once.  Absurd.

- --
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- ---+-

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 6.5i

iQA/AwUBOaFr2npf7K2LbpnFEQIwrgCfbEOnReoWh4MUMAw33mpaKOuEUpwAoPop
YDq0OfAGkmHUTG2iPXXSzcnw
=Oq81
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Michael Smith]

If you have dialup access with many users with different pop accounts (like my 
family
once), you can grab everybody's mail as soon as anyone connects with ppp.  That 
way,
nobody has to dial in to check mail--it's already grabbed.

Also, you can grab pop mail from multiple servers if you're like the typical 
guy and
have 5+ mail addresses.

--Mike

Steve Lamb wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Wednesday, August 16, 2000, 6:30:22 PM, John wrote:
> > i do appreciate that the fetchmail approach is more elegant.. but it is more
> > daunting too.
>
> Hate to tell you but fetchmail is not more elegant.  In fact, I find it
> quite archaic.  I don't know about you, but there is something about pulling 2
> accounts worth of mail, dumping them into a single local account and then have
> to filter it all out /and/ have to tell the mail client to use x account in y
> situation but not z that is quite inelegant.
>
> - --
>  Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
>  ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
> - 
> ---+-
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: PGP 6.5i
>
> iQA/AwUBOaFS7Xpf7K2LbpnFEQKiXgCdH69WZimb3Xs9R1D7KxJc7T7jwyYAoKyy
> IDdi4LTPs0uQFmlapNgTd0HI
> =BNDI
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> --
> Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Wednesday, August 16, 2000, 6:30:22 PM, John wrote:
> i do appreciate that the fetchmail approach is more elegant.. but it is more
> daunting too.

Hate to tell you but fetchmail is not more elegant.  In fact, I find it
quite archaic.  I don't know about you, but there is something about pulling 2
accounts worth of mail, dumping them into a single local account and then have
to filter it all out /and/ have to tell the mail client to use x account in y
situation but not z that is quite inelegant.

- --
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- ---+-

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 6.5i

iQA/AwUBOaFS7Xpf7K2LbpnFEQKiXgCdH69WZimb3Xs9R1D7KxJc7T7jwyYAoKyy
IDdi4LTPs0uQFmlapNgTd0HI
=BNDI
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Steve Lamb]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Wednesday, August 16, 2000, 6:19:39 PM, John wrote:
> from the fetchmail man page:

Too bad fetchmail isn't a client, huh?

- --
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- ---+-

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 6.5i

iQA/AwUBOaFRT3pf7K2LbpnFEQKKDACg1mYu4PJX/unagG6ygGtHQGKDxgoAn1Rr
d9TyFMiy1P4x1VAKX0TBTmS+
=vjiG
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error)

[Andr? Dahlqvist]

On Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 07:17:59PM -0300, Rogerio Brito wrote:

> In that case, they might just use an older version of Windows with
> Internet Explorer and they are able to see the web more confortably
> than using Linux and Netscape.

If a user don't see any benefits from using Linux he obviously
shouldn't do so. I don't want people to use Linux just for the heck of
it, I want people to use it because it does what they want in a good
way. So I agree with you, if you don't see any benefits of using Linux
you shouldn't use it.

I know why I use it.
-- 

// André

Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error)

[Rogerio Brito]

On Aug 18 2000, John Leuner wrote:
> But let's face it, a debug build of Moz is a dog. Do we really need
> Athlons to surf the web?

That was exactly my point. Most users (unfortunately, might I
add) don't care for free software or for proprietary software.
They care about their job being done, without facing technical
details that might not be relevant to what they intend to do
(or that they don't want to know about), and, in a sense,
they're right.

In that case, they might just use an older version of Windows
with Internet Explorer and they are able to see the web more
confortably than using Linux and Netscape.

Having to change your hardware for playing the latest high-end
3D game with 100 or 101 frames per second is one thing. Having
to change your hardware for sufing the web is something
completely different.


[]s, Roger...

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
 Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/nectar/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error)

[John Leuner]

> > Ok. Let's wait a little bit more about it. And hope it gets
> > smaller. :-)
> 
> Mozilla 1.0 will bring peace to earth, I just know it:-)
> -- 

But let's face it, a debug build of Moz is a dog. Do we really need
Athlons to surf the web?

--
John Leuner - Cancel my subscription to the resurrection
- Send my credentials to the house of detention
-- The Doors


GeekCode Version 3.1
GCS/L dpu dx s: a-- C UL+++ P L+++ E+++ W+ N- O? K? w--- o-- M? V?
PS+++ PE+++ Y+ PGP t- 5- X- R !tv b DI-- +++ D-- G e+++ z* 

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[John Hasler]

John Griffiths writes:
> learning to use/master fetchmail is on my list of things to do...

Install and run fetchmailconf.

> (somewhere after getting a useable X in debian)

Which fetchmailconf requires, unfortunately.
-- 
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI

Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error)

[John Hasler]

André writes:
> It [Gecko] is not a browser by itself, if that's what you though.

I keep hoping for a plain, simple browser that just works.  Oh, well.
-- 
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[John Griffiths]

John Hasler wrote:
>This puts the size limiting function where it belongs and does not destroy
>mail.
>-- 

learning to use/master fetchmail is on my list of things to do (somewhere after 
getting a useable X in debian)

but in the meantime i need to get my mail

the windows model of mail client communicates with a POP and an SMTP server 
directly..

its that functionality that netscape-mail/ pronto/ evolution/ tradeclient/ 
mahogany/ aeromail/ anyone-i've-missed are aiming for. and the old truncate 
function is something they mostly don't have (i suspect because most of the 
developers are on good bandwidth)

i do appreciate that the fetchmail approach is more elegant.. but it is more 
daunting too.

John

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[John Hasler]

John Griffiths writes:
> what netscape mail does... and very few linux mail clients do..
> is truncate large messages...

from the fetchmail man page:

   Resource Limit Control Options
   -l , --limit 
  (Keyword:  limit)  Takes a maximum octet size argu­
  ment.  Messages larger than this size will  not  be
  fetched,  not  be  marked seen, and will be left on
  the server (in foreground  sessions,  the  progress
  messages  will note that they are "oversized").  An
  explicit --limit of 0 overrides any limits  set  in
  your  run control file. This option is intended for
  those needing to strictly control fetch time due to
  expensive  and  variable  phone  rates.   In daemon
  mode, oversize  notifications  are  mailed  to  the
  calling  user  (see  the  --warnings option).  This
  option does not work with ETRN.

This puts the size limiting function where it belongs and does not destroy
mail.
-- 
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI

Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error)

[André Dahlqvist]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 08:09:42PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:

> Where do get Gecko?

Gecko is the rendering engine that Mozilla, and now other projects
use. It is not a browser by itself, if that's what you though.
-- 

// André

Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error)

[John Hasler]

André Dahlqvist wrote:
> Don't forget that the Mozilla team created Gecko,...

Where do get Gecko?
-- 
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin

Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error)

[André Dahlqvist]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 05:19:29PM -0300, Rogerio Brito wrote:

> Interestingly enough, the most common machines nowadays in my country
> seem to be Celeron or K6-2 machines with 32MB of RAM.  This makes
> surfing the web with Linux almost a nightmare (even if you turn on
> UDMA/66 so that swapping is 2 or 3 times faster).

I understand that this is a money issue, but 64MB of RAM is considered
standard these days, and that requirement is unlikely to shrink. Buying
32MB of RAM when your other hardware is K6-2 and UDMA/66 harddrive
doesn't make much sense IMHO.

> I recognize that not everybody should be developing for embedded
> systems, but expecting people to change their computers so that they
> can run the newer software is an absurd.

While I partly agree with this I also think that if you expect to be
able to run the latest sofware you will have to expect to sometimes also
upgrade your hardware. If a person can't do that he's going to have to
stick to what he's using now.

> I will get in the next month a new Athlon with 128MB and a good
> motherboard. I hope that Mozilla runs on my new machine. :-)

I'm gonna buy myself an Althlon soon too, I just want to wait a little
longer so that USB v2 gets supported on motherboards. Bluetooth would be
nice too, but that would be too long of a wait:-)

> Well, I also think that Netscape 4.x is slow. But it is not as slow as
> Mozilla (and it is acceptably stable here on my machine).

But the problem with Netscape 4.x isn't just that it's buggy beyond
words, it also has really poor standards compliance.

> Well, optimizing has its limits. I don't hold that much of a faith
> until I see the size of the program decrease a lot.

The source is out there, you can always jump in and help fix it.

> Ok. I'll try one of the nightly builds and then I'll post my analisys
> here, as soon as I have some time.

Great, I'm looking forward to hearing your experience with it. Let me
also know what kernel you're doing your tests on, the VM can have quiet
a big impact on these things.

> So, if you have other applications using those libraries, then the
> increase in memory occupation won't be as noticeable as if you
> increase the size of your binary (which will only be shared by
> different instances of your program and not by other programs as
> well).

Yes, that's obviously the point with gnome and similair projects, but if
you don't normally use gnome, which isn't very likely if we are talking
about a low-end system, you don't gain much from this.

> I'm not complaining about the slowness of the project. I'm just
> fearing that it may not be as successful as it could be.

Just remember that you can always step in and give those guys some help.

> Ok. Let's wait a little bit more about it. And hope it gets
> smaller. :-)

Mozilla 1.0 will bring peace to earth, I just know it:-)
-- 

// André

Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[John Griffiths]

what netscape mail does... and very few linux mail clients do..

is truncate large messages...

its pretty essential for dial-up users who get volumes of mail with 
attachments...

i've bent the ear of both the pronto and the evolution teams and they both seem 
to have taken on board what i was trying to say

but until its implemented i'm stuck with netscape mail (and i don't think i'm 
alone)

John


WARNING - 
This email is confidential and may contain copyright material. 
If you are not the intended recipient of Capital Monitor's original e-mail,
please notify me by return e-mail, delete your copy of the message, and
accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused.
Republication or re-dissemination, including posting to news groups or web
pages, is strictly prohibited without the express prior consent of Capital
Monitor Pty Ltd.  



John Griffiths  Tel 02 6273 4899
Capital Monitor Pty Ltd Fax 02 6273 4905
Press Gallery   Mobile: 0412 690 643
Parliament Housee-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Canberra   ACT   2600   http://www.capmon.com
Australia   ICQ No: 7933859

Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))

[Tal Danzig]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:19:29 -0300, Rogerio Brito said:

>   BTW, I also notice how much people use Netscape to handle
>   their mail and when I install Linux for my friends I install
>   it also, for the following convenience: you don't need an MTA
>   in your machine for the (conceptually) simple tasks of
>   receiving and sending e-mails -- it incorporates both a POP3
>   and a SMTP client in a single program.
>  
>   That is the reason why I don't install mutt for other people
>   (that might not know how to fix the problems when they
>   happen).  But *if* I knew of other e-mailers with the same
>   functionality already packaged for Debian, I would consider
>   them.
>  
>   Which means that if we had different applications (the mail
>   and browser) each doing its job, we could have smaller
>   programs, easier to maintain (for the programmer) and faster
>   (for the user).
>  

As a former user of the Netscape mail client I can tell you that there are much
better alternatives out there.

The Netscape mail client is rather bloated (especially is you use it just for
mail) and is (at least in my experiance) crash prone.  Also its attachement to
the browser has some disadvantages (if I could count the mails I have lost due
to a browser crash will composing mail).

Recently I found a new mail client called Pronto ( http://www.muhri.net/pronto
) it handles mail much better (and faster) then Netscape ever could while being
more user friendly (IMO) then any other client out there.  It handles multiple
POP accounts, it imports mail very well, and has a good system of filtering,
and searching through mail.
It is very fast, especially when used with mysql or postgresql as the database
backend (you can still use it without either, but these are much faster)

There is also cpronto a console based mail client which has all (or almost all)
of the features found in the graphical version.

Currently I am tracking the CVS version of Pronto, but there is a Debian
package in woody.  A source install is also very simple with the prontoinstall
program.

Anyway, for those looking for a fast feature filled graphicall (or none
graphical) mail client Pronto is your best bet.

Tal


-- 

|   Tal Danzig | Join #libranet on the |
|   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   | openprojects IRC network  |

|   http://www.libranet.com|   Tal Danzig  |
|   The TOP Desktop!   |   [EMAIL PROTECTED]|

Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error)

[Rogerio Brito]

On Aug 16 2000, André Dahlqvist wrote:
> Like I have said before, this is constantly improving.

Which is good. I sincerely hope its size decreases. BTW,
AFAICR, Debian's packaged version of M17 does not include the
mail and news client. I will experiment to see if.

> The other day I was surfing the web, and as I was going to shut
> Mozilla down I ended up closing window after window.  As it was, I
> had had in total 5 different windows open, and I hadn't noticed any
> considerable slowdown.

I always surf the web with 5 or 6 open windows (so that I can
surf on orthogonal issues).

> This is with the M18 build on a 233Mhz K6 with 64 megs of RAM, so my
> machine is rather modest too.

Interestingly enough, the most common machines nowadays in my
country seem to be Celeron or K6-2 machines with 32MB of RAM.
This makes surfing the web with Linux almost a nightmare (even
if you turn on UDMA/66 so that swapping is 2 or 3 times
faster).

In the case of my computer, I use a Pentium 200MHz overclocked
to 250MHz with 64MB of RAM and it is much more acceptable to
run Netscape. But Mozilla is still slow. I just don't see why
programs always have this exponential growth. I recognize that
not everybody should be developing for embedded systems, but
expecting people to change their computers so that they can
run the newer software is an absurd.

I will get in the next month a new Athlon with 128MB and a
good motherboard. I hope that Mozilla runs on my new machine.
:-)

> When I look back at the days when I used to run Netscape I seem to
> remember that opening more than one windows was pretty much asking
> for a crash.

Well, I also think that Netscape 4.x is slow. But it is not as
slow as Mozilla (and it is acceptably stable here on my
machine). My main complaints with Netscape 4.x are:

* I can't select the size of the letters of documents I wish
  to print;
* It has poor font manipulation;
* Its DNS resolver does not seem to be threaded (so, when
  opening new windows, older windows are not refreshed and
  this situation happens for as long as the new window's name
  isn't resolved -- but I understand that this was motivated
  by a technical difficulty, as I read once jwz talk about
  it).

> People also seem to forget that performance has been very much a
> secondary priority up until now.

Well, I am a programmer so I know that fixing something that
is already broken is usually harder than building something
new from scratch -- BTW, this was the rationale for the
Mozilla Project not taking (or taking very little) of the code
from Netscape: fixing it would probably be a nightmare.

What I mean with that is: let's hope that the features have
not made performance adjusts hard (or impossible).

> Now that most features are in the performance work can begin, and I
> have full trust in that the Mozilla team will do an excellent job
> optimizing it. I have seen some incredible speed-ups in the past, so
> I know just how much things can improve.

Well, optimizing has its limits. I don't hold that much of a
faith until I see the size of the program decrease a lot. In
my experience, the problems so far that have affected me the
most are indeed caused by its size which causes swapping: I'll
be crossing my fingers to all the debugging code still present
in it to make a difference. Let's see.

> I agree that the Mozilla team has given themselves a huge task by
> choosing to make an entire communicator suit, and not just a
> browser.  I myself don't want Mozilla Mail; I use Mutt for that just
> like you do.  I don't want a USENET reader nor a IRC client in my
> browser either.  What you have to remember though is that you have
> the option of exactly what components you want to install. If you
> only want to install the browser you can do so. I am pretty sure
> that we will see a browser-only debian package of Mozilla pretty
> soon, and a mailnews package for those who want that. Looking at
> mail headers over the years have tought me that there still are
> quiet a lot of people who seam to like using Netscape to handle
> their mail, and I think it's nice to give those people that option.

Great taste you have. :-) Yes, mutt rules, since it is so
flexible and configurable and I can use it in a console. :-)

Now it is *my time* to say "don't get me wrong". I do hope
that the Mozilla team is able to produce a superb browser
(after all, I would have one more option of browsers, coming
from a project with serious funding and clear objectives). I'm
just not too optimistic about it, by the snapshots that I have
seen. 

Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error)

[André Dahlqvist]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 05:50:04PM +0200, Joachim Trinkwitz wrote:

> The current mozilla Debian package (M17-1 here) *is* a browser-only
> version (unfortunately, it has no themes either).

Someone said that this was not actually the case, and stated that it
seamed more like a permission thing on the directory where it is installed.
I'm using upstream M18, so I wouldn't know.

> Shouldn't it be possible to run Galeon (alas, no deb available, and it
> seems impossible to compile it) without GNOME (of course, the
> libraries are unumbearable, but they don't occupy much space on the
> hard disk)?

I doubt that, it is a gnome program and it's therefore rather tightly bound
to the gnome libraries at the moment. I'm sure someone will do a GTK+-only
thing soon, if it hasn't been done yet, but Mozilla runs great on my box
already, so I'm sticking with it.
-- 

// André

Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error)

[Joachim Trinkwitz]

=?iso-8859-15?Q?Andr=E9_Dahlqvist?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> browser you can do so. I am pretty sure that we will see a browser-only
> debian package of Mozilla pretty soon, and a mailnews package for those
> who want that. Looking at mail headers over the years have tought me

The current mozilla Debian package (M17-1 here) *is* a browser-only
version (unfortunately, it has no themes either).

> Although I must admit that having to install around 20 different
> packages (libgnome32 and friends) in order to be able to run Galeon
> doesn't strike me as very light weight nor nice from a users
> standpoint, but who am I to judge?:-)

Shouldn't it be possible to run Galeon (alas, no deb available, and it
seems impossible to compile it) without GNOME (of course, the
libraries are unumbearable, but they don't occupy much space on the
hard disk)?

Greetings,
joachim

Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error)

[Marko Cehaja]

Dear

On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 08:04:09AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> Are there any graphical browsers that will run on the console and render
> to framebuffer or GGI, and currently work fairly well? I remember hearing
> about one, but don't remember the name, and I recall at the time it was
> in alpha/developmental stage.

I know of one browser which works in console by using the SuperVGA. It doesn't 
require X Window System.

The browser is Arachne, and it is in development still, but as I have seen it, 
it works pretty good and stable. It is also pretty fast.

But it is not free. You can probably find it at http://www.browsers.org, but I 
am not sure. If not try at download.com

Sincerely,
Marko Cehaja

Re: Netscape Bus Error

[kmself]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 04:42:26AM -0400, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > 
> > It means Netscape is crap software.
> 
> 
>   Not everyone has these kinds of troubles with Netscape.  I'm not
> saying its great, because it isn't, but neither is it "crap" software.

I stand by my statements.

> [snip]
> > Mozilla should improve much of this, but the default build is far too
> > complex for a basic browser.  Gzilla and/or Gnutella look like far more
> > promising projects.  Both are based on the Gecko rendering engine, but
> > strip out much of the bloat being pumped into Mozilla.
> 
> 
>   To be fair to Mozilla, it is trying to do much more than what Gzilla
> and Gnutella do.  Mozilla is not just a browser, it is attempting to
> provide the main features found in Netscape Communicator, i.e., mail
> and newsgroup support.  We disagree on what is 'bloat' obviously.  :-)

Simplicity of design and singularity of purpose are key tenets of
building solid software which accomplish needed goals.  Confounding
software by integrating multiple functionality into a single product has
a strong tendency to decrease the quality of the product as a whole.
Modular construction with simple interconnections tends to produce
better software.  It's the Linux way.

Mozilla *does* have a modular design.  However, the modules interact as
a single unit, and the default build tends to be more, not less.  This
is less than desirable.  The emergence of not one but several projects
to simplify its design should be telling the Mozilla organization
something.

I tend to see Mozilla as largely good software and largely good design.
It's the final packaging I disagree with.  Strongly.

All IMVAO, of course.

-- 
Karsten M. Self  http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
 Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?   Debian GNU/Linux rocks!
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org
GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0


pgpJU8OemAb6f.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Netscape Bus Error

[Mark Walter]

Hi,

> > It means Netscape is crap software.
>   Not everyone has these kinds of troubles with Netscape.  I'm not
> saying its great, because it isn't, but neither is it "crap" software.

Bus-Error occurs sometimes when you're using Java. Deactivate it and see
how it goes.

cu
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  

Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error)

[ferret]

Are there any graphical browsers that will run on the console and render
to framebuffer or GGI, and currently work fairly well? I remember hearing
about one, but don't remember the name, and I recall at the time it was
in alpha/developmental stage.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Rogerio Brito wrote:

> On Aug 16 2000, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > Mozilla should improve much of this, but the default build is far
> > too complex for a basic browser.
> 
>   Not to mention that this implies that Mozilla is *slow* (since
>   it doesn't fit in core), depending on what it is doing (for
>   basic navigation, it is ok; opening a new window makes it
>   slow; navigating through the Preferences menus is even
>   *slower*).
> 
> > Gzilla and/or Gnutella look like far more promising projects.  Both
> > are based on the Gecko rendering engine, but strip out much of the
> > bloat being pumped into Mozilla.
> 
>   I don't know why the rationale of such a complex application
>   is. Not even making considerations from a usability
>   standpoint, the Mozilla coordination must have nightmares
>   every single night for maintaining such a huge project. One of
>   the basic laws of engineering is the KISS principle, of
>   course.
> 
>   Anyway, back on the alternatives, Gzilla indeed looks like a
>   promising project. It is nowadays called Armadillo and, last I
>   checked, its homepage was http://www.gzilla.com/. Another free
>   web-browser is Mnemonic, which even has packages for Debian.
>   Its site is http://www.mnemonic.org/.
> 
>   BTW, it would be nice if people started using these browsers
>   and giving feedback to their developers. In the mean time, we
>   may continue to use w3m or links or lynx as our nice text
>   browsers. All three are packaged in potato. :-)
> 
> 
>   []s, Roger...
> 
> -- 
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>   Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
>  Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/nectar/
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> 
> 
> -- 
> Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
> 

Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error)

[Preben Randhol]

Rogerio Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 16/08/2000 (11:44) :
>   may continue to use w3m or links or lynx as our nice text
>   browsers. All three are packaged in potato. :-)

w3m is now my default browser. I use it more than netscape as I'm more
concerned about the content of the pages that I read than the wrapping.
No annoying animated GIFs is a big plus. Download time is less also (due
to that graphics don't have to be downloaded).

-- 
Preben Randhol - Ph. D student - http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent", Isaac Asimov

Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error)

[André Dahlqvist]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 04:48:02AM -0300, Rogerio Brito wrote:

> Not to mention that this implies that Mozilla is *slow* (since
> it doesn't fit in core), depending on what it is doing (for
> basic navigation, it is ok; opening a new window makes it
> slow; navigating through the Preferences menus is even
> *slower*).

Like I have said before, this is constantly improving. The other day I
was surfing the web, and as I was going to shut Mozilla down I ended up
closing window after window. As it was, I had had in total 5 different
windows open, and I hadn't noticed any considerable slowdown. This is
with the M18 build on a 233Mhz K6 with 64 megs of RAM, so my machine is
rather modest too. When I look back at the days when I used to run
Netscape I seem to remember that opening more than one windows was
pretty much asking for a crash.

People also seem to forget that performance has been very much a
secondary priority up until now. The big work so far has been to get
features in and fix bugs. Now that most features are in the performance
work can begin, and I have full trust in that the Mozilla team will do
an excellent job optimizing it. I have seen some incredible speed-ups
in the past, so I know just how much things can improve.

> I don't know why the rationale of such a complex application is. Not
> even making considerations from a usability standpoint, the Mozilla
> coordination must have nightmares every single night for maintaining
> such a huge project. One of the basic laws of engineering is the KISS
> principle, of course

I agree that the Mozilla team has given themselves a huge task by
choosing to make an entire communicator suit, and not just a browser.
I myself don't want Mozilla Mail; I use Mutt for that just like you do. 
I don't want a USENET reader nor a IRC client in my browser either.
What you have to remember though is that you have the option of exactly
what components you want to install. If you only want to install the
browser you can do so. I am pretty sure that we will see a browser-only
debian package of Mozilla pretty soon, and a mailnews package for those
who want that. Looking at mail headers over the years have tought me
that there still are quiet a lot of people who seam to like using 
Netscape to handle their mail, and I think it's nice to give those
people that option.

But don't get me wrong, I applaud alternatives like Galeon and similair
projects. They are using what many feel is the best thing the Mozilla
team has created, namely Gecko. This rendering engine has also seen
some big improvements on the Linux side recently in M18, closing the
gap to the Windows build.

Although I must admit that having to install around 20 different
packages (libgnome32 and friends) in order to be able to run Galeon
doesn't strike me as very light weight nor nice from a users
standpoint, but who am I to judge?:-)

So to summarize, it is great to have many choices to choose from when
deciding what browser or communication suit you want to use. We should
be glad that we have that choice, instead of complaing about the
slowness of one project or the other. Don't forget that the Mozilla
team created Gecko, and the word "slow" isn't the first one that pops
up in my mind when I think of it.
-- 

// André

Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error)

[Rogerio Brito]

On Aug 16 2000, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Mozilla should improve much of this, but the default build is far
> too complex for a basic browser.

Not to mention that this implies that Mozilla is *slow* (since
it doesn't fit in core), depending on what it is doing (for
basic navigation, it is ok; opening a new window makes it
slow; navigating through the Preferences menus is even
*slower*).

> Gzilla and/or Gnutella look like far more promising projects.  Both
> are based on the Gecko rendering engine, but strip out much of the
> bloat being pumped into Mozilla.

I don't know why the rationale of such a complex application
is. Not even making considerations from a usability
standpoint, the Mozilla coordination must have nightmares
every single night for maintaining such a huge project. One of
the basic laws of engineering is the KISS principle, of
course.

Anyway, back on the alternatives, Gzilla indeed looks like a
promising project. It is nowadays called Armadillo and, last I
checked, its homepage was http://www.gzilla.com/. Another free
web-browser is Mnemonic, which even has packages for Debian.
Its site is http://www.mnemonic.org/.

BTW, it would be nice if people started using these browsers
and giving feedback to their developers. In the mean time, we
may continue to use w3m or links or lynx as our nice text
browsers. All three are packaged in potato. :-)


[]s, Roger...

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
 Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/nectar/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Re: Netscape Bus Error

[Ed Cogburn]

kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> 
> It means Netscape is crap software.


Not everyone has these kinds of troubles with Netscape.  I'm not
saying its great, because it isn't, but neither is it "crap" software.


> 
> It *will* crash.  Frequently.  Get used to it.


I manage to trip a bug once every, say, 2 weeks.  Not good, but not
horrible either.


[snip]
> Mozilla should improve much of this, but the default build is far too
> complex for a basic browser.  Gzilla and/or Gnutella look like far more
> promising projects.  Both are based on the Gecko rendering engine, but
> strip out much of the bloat being pumped into Mozilla.


To be fair to Mozilla, it is trying to do much more than what Gzilla
and Gnutella do.  Mozilla is not just a browser, it is attempting to
provide the main features found in Netscape Communicator, i.e., mail
and newsgroup support.  We disagree on what is 'bloat' obviously.  :-)

Re: Netscape Bus Error

[kmself]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 02:38:04AM -0500, Eric Gillespie, Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 12:15:00AM -0700,
> kmself@ix.netcom.com  wrote:
> > complex for a basic browser. Gzilla and/or Gnutella look like
> > far more promising projects. Both are based on the Gecko
> > rendering engine, but strip out much of the bloat being pumped
> > into Mozilla.
> 
> I assume you meant Galeon, not Gnutella.

No, I meant Gnutella.

But I obviously had no fscking clue what I was talking about.



Thanks.

-- 
Karsten M. Self  http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
 Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?   Debian GNU/Linux rocks!
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org
GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0


pgpzKtJotGcz8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Netscape Bus Error

[kmself]

It means Netscape is crap software.

It *will* crash.  Frequently.  Get used to it.

Disable Java and Javascript.  This will help.  I've noticed sensitivity
to libs, with significant changes in NS behavior between various system
updates.

Mozilla should improve much of this, but the default build is far too
complex for a basic browser.  Gzilla and/or Gnutella look like far more
promising projects.  Both are based on the Gecko rendering engine, but
strip out much of the bloat being pumped into Mozilla.

On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 12:48:22AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>  Hash: SHA1
>  
>  Hi there 
>  
>  Can someone explain me what a "Bus Error" is?
>  It sounds like a new invention by Micro$oft.
>  
>  - --
>  
>  -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>  Version: PGP 6.5.1i
>  
>  iQA/AwUBOZnIqqFxQTtRrRT1EQIRIgCfRzbFcj9owj9bJackLZvei2RznMYAnip0
>  7d82MyOh0fzXjZ9SYPVjk+gJ
>  =kldW
>  -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
> 

-- 
Karsten M. Self  http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
 Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?   Debian GNU/Linux rocks!
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org
GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0


pgpH3IbvLTeIf.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Netscape Bus Error

[jens]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: SHA1
 
 Hi there 
 
 Can someone explain me what a "Bus Error" is?
 It sounds like a new invention by Micro$oft.
 
 - --
 
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
 Version: PGP 6.5.1i
 
 iQA/AwUBOZnIqqFxQTtRrRT1EQIRIgCfRzbFcj9owj9bJackLZvei2RznMYAnip0
 7d82MyOh0fzXjZ9SYPVjk+gJ
 =kldW
 -END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: netscape bus error

[eric k. wolven]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-


Dear fellow d-users:

I removed the realplayer.deb and netscape works fine.  I consulted the message 
about the RealPlayer.deb in another message.

Thanks for the suggestions, nevertheless.


Eric K. Wolven



[EMAIL PROTECTED] (rick) writes:

> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > "Eric K. Wolven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>I'm getting "bus error" when I start netscape navigator (4.72) from xterm.
> >>Also some "cranking" from hd when I menu-click, but then no go.
> > 
> > Does switching to the libc5 version of Navigator (the
> > navigator-smotif-472-libc5 package) solve your problem?
> 
> I started crashing the bus yesterday after a woody upgrade.
> Purged everything with netscape/navigator in the name, plugger,
> cleared cache and installed navigator-smotif-472-libc5 and it
> seems fine so far.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBONLCZclLFbyoURnJAQGT4QL/fjN94rNR8rxsaYUpjoQpUlYs7GoMDUOv
YxZEVJoWY1rbrAkTHSpGtgbmGLVptRlKRfMoOWbM2ENDCs77Bx2VefQw2DTGfH87
kmGOM/wKI+nzRi0R8EzC/QzqRRqWJywq
=b8Ns
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: netscape bus error

[rick]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> "Eric K. Wolven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I'm getting "bus error" when I start netscape navigator (4.72) from xterm.
>>Also some "cranking" from hd when I menu-click, but then no go.
> 
> Does switching to the libc5 version of Navigator (the
> navigator-smotif-472-libc5 package) solve your problem?

I started crashing the bus yesterday after a woody upgrade.
Purged everything with netscape/navigator in the name, plugger,
cleared cache and installed navigator-smotif-472-libc5 and it
seems fine so far.

Re: netscape bus error

[Colin Watson]

"Eric K. Wolven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm getting "bus error" when I start netscape navigator (4.72) from xterm.
>Also some "cranking" from hd when I menu-click, but then no go.

Does switching to the libc5 version of Navigator (the
navigator-smotif-472-libc5 package) solve your problem?

-- 
Colin Watson   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

netscape bus error

[eric k. wolven]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-


Fellow Debian-users:

I'm getting "bus error" when I start netscape navigator (4.72) from xterm.
Also some "cranking" from hd when I menu-click, but then no go.

Communicator 4.7 the same.

No Plugger, but I did download RealPlayer7 per update and Deb wrapper installed 
it. My problem might be related to this?

Any ideas?

Thanks.


Eric Wolven
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBONGA8clLFbyoURnJAQHF2gL8DK9lQCb4OvmjNwVAIN3tmDLaVoRKZT1J
wHT3IG71NxtvI9K6Nscq/VM0H0Qg1zRkKtZCJzibxqCtyYGZQRk7y6QB2MOQ7qpq
KrQaWiNCsQ89bUug+4cCkmPk68ojCRbZ
=F4Cz
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Netscape -- Bus Error

[Robert Rati]

Ya, I just had a similar problem.  Uninstall plugger and that should fix
it.

Rob

On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, jason wrote:

> Netscape crashed hard on me the other day.. now whenever i try to run it
> from the command line i get
> 
> >Bus Error
> 
> anyone know what i have to do to fix this?
> 
>  
> 
> -jason
> 
> "When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second.  When you
> sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity."
>   -Einstein
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
> 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]   1999-00 |
Aka Khyron the Backstabber  |   LI  NN N  U U  X X  O
ICQ# 2325055|   LI  N NN  U U   X
|   LLL  I  N  N  UUU  X X  O
"Shackles cannot keep me bound  |  Those who can, do.
 forever.  I'm outta here." |

Netscape -- Bus Error

[jason]

Netscape crashed hard on me the other day.. now whenever i try to run it
from the command line i get

>Bus Error

anyone know what i have to do to fix this?

 

-jason

"When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second.  When you
sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity."
-Einstein

Re: netscape bus error

[Bob Nielsen]

There have been bug reports filed on both of these problems, so the
maintainers are aware of the situation.  Actually "menu" doesn't break
anything else but many of the menu items don't show up.

On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 04:00:13PM -0500, eric k. wolven wrote:
> Robert: Try removing "plugger".  Joe Bouchard on the list (cf) says
> menu and plugger" are both "bad".  I removed "plugger" and netscape
> works.
> 
> Maybe someone will fix these apps.
> 
> eric
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Rati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > I just upgraded my potato system to the newest packages and now netscape
> > bus errors.  Is this a known bug that was overlooked and will be fixed?
> > Netscape worked just fine before the upgrade.


-- 
Bob Nielsen, N7XY (ex-W6SWE)  (RN2)[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tucson, AZ DM42nh  QRP-L #1985 http://www.primenet.com/~nielsen
 

Re: netscape bus error

[eric k. wolven]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

Robert:
Try removing "plugger".  Joe Bouchard on the list (cf) says menu and plugger" 
are both "bad".  I removed "plugger" and netscape works.

Maybe someone will fix these apps.

eric



Robert Rati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I just upgraded my potato system to the newest packages and now netscape
> bus errors.  Is this a known bug that was overlooked and will be fixed?
> Netscape worked just fine before the upgrade.
> 
>   Rob
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]   1999-00 |
> Aka Khyron the Backstabber  |   LI  NN N  U U  X X  O
> ICQ# 2325055|   LI  N NN  U U   X
> |   LLL  I  N  N  UUU  X X  O
> "Shackles cannot keep me bound  |  Those who can, do.
>  forever.  I'm outta here." |
> 
> 
> -- 
> Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBOItr08aVl6CLtWIhAQEFgQL+OVZqERLZtXl8kd1qy+c/f2wf3z4msN1G
P62uRoTcj8oRSGmc58daShpEBhIKzjG3OpkwdOtDEjam22WkpUENVQcVWvfIg/Zx
Ky+ja7dbdyXBL7dt/kWttFZBORHhF9o8
=p7AQ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-