Re: [OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
Just to stick in another random opinion: I've been pretty pine die hard for almost 3 years now. I tried out mutt about a month ago, and just couldn't make the switch. Went back to pine and Mailbox, despite personally preferring Maildir. Tried it again about 3 days ago due to peer pressure and disgust with Mailbox format - and something clicked. I'd now recommend it to anyone that wants MUA Maildir support, regardless whether or not they are a pine fan. It only took about an hour to make it do everything I was used to in pine - and the stuff I couldn't reprogram my fingers to do (x is for expunge, dammit!) I just re-binded. Very slick. And the pgp support... delicious. :D (Now if I could only figure out how to color code tagged messages...) OK, on your advice I will look into mutt and give it a whirl, but god knows I have better things to do with my time than evaluate MUA's. Give it a serious hour of your time. You won't be disappointed. -- Mahlon Smith InternetCDS http://www.internetcds.com
Re: [OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:32:29AM +, James R Grinter wrote: But, it doesn't matter - Pine does IMAP right? (Isn't that it's real reason for existence?) So hook your Maildirs up with IMAP, and point Pine at that. Seems pretty simple to me. How about this: Use a non-crappy, open source e-mail client instead? no need to tell me - (for the record I've never ever used Pine, though I think I did compile it for someone else once.) but for people to complain that they want to use it, but that it doesn't natively support Maildir which they also want to use, is just madness. James.
Re: [OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
"Pavel Kankovsky" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Adam McKenna wrote: The author of PINE flat out refuses to support Maildir. Umm...doesn't it sound familiar? ;) But, it doesn't matter - Pine does IMAP right? (Isn't that it's real reason for existence?) So hook your Maildirs up with IMAP, and point Pine at that. Seems pretty simple to me. James.
Re: [OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:32:29AM +, James R Grinter wrote: But, it doesn't matter - Pine does IMAP right? (Isn't that it's real reason for existence?) So hook your Maildirs up with IMAP, and point Pine at that. Seems pretty simple to me. How about this: Use a non-crappy, open source e-mail client instead? --Adam
Re: [OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
But, it doesn't matter - Pine does IMAP right? (Isn't that it's real reason for existence?) So hook your Maildirs up with IMAP, and point Pine at that. Seems pretty simple to me. How about this: Use a non-crappy, open source e-mail client instead? --Adam And what MUA is that? I am happy that RedHat, despite all the people who hate them, distributes PINE patched to work with Maildirs. PINE may be limited, but it sure is useful as a quick and dirty console-base MUA. I figured out how to use in in about 3 minutes without having to RTFM. I have to admit that I am sick of _yet_another_non_GPL_free_software_license_, with every college having to advertise "our students/faculty did something remotely usefull", but it works, and it is free enough for most purposes. But as I said, if I am missing some great GPL MUA, pray tell... --Pete Written using PINE, telnet'ed in from a remote location to my ISP
Re: [OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
Peter Cavender [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: PINE may be limited, but it sure is useful as a quick and dirty console-base MUA. I figured out how to use in in about 3 minutes without having to RTFM. If you've ever had to deal with the code, dirty is definitely an accurate description. But as I said, if I am missing some great GPL MUA, pray tell... mutt is pretty popular and is what we now recommend over Pine for anyone willing to change. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Re: [OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
PINE may be limited, but it sure is useful as a quick and dirty console-base MUA. I figured out how to use in in about 3 minutes without having to RTFM. If you've ever had to deal with the code, dirty is definitely an accurate description. Well, yes. I once tried to hack just pico, and gave up in disgust. weemacs??? OK, on your advice I will look into mutt and give it a whirl, but god knows I have better things to do with my time than evaluate MUA's. But then I can't be closed mindedThanks. --Pete
Re: [OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 03:03:38AM -0500, tc lewis wrote: plus the whole idiotic self-quoting thing on the top of mutt's web page, and some other stuff on the web pages, just makes me think that the author is an idiot. but that's certainly not very objective reasoning. This is coming from someone who doesn't know what capitalization is. But you can't please them all, right? this is the absolute worst argument i've ever heard in my entire life. don't ever email me again. Dish it but can't take it. for now i'm still using an old pine with the maildir patch, as that mutt date interpretation thing simply makes it impossible for me to use. Like I said I've had no problems in this area except when the message itself was flawed. Are you sure you are using Mutt properly? no, i'm not sure. i've been talking about this in private messages with someone else. i'm not sure that my use of mutt is perfect, altho i have no idea what i could possibly be messing up. nevertheless, if i have to mess around with it that much for it to be coherent for me to use, it's not the proper tool for me. to each his own. RTFM, and *plonk*
Re: [OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Adam McKenna wrote: The author of PINE flat out refuses to support Maildir. Umm...doesn't it sound familiar? ;) --Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ] "Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
[OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 10:42:11PM -, Piotr Kasztelowicz wrote: In discusion - regard to Maildir versus mailbox question - for promoting Maidir were is useful to encourage pine authors to adapting the pine program for directly work with Maildir fromat. maybe you find this useful, I don't. So contact the pine authors. Pine, as I think, is most popular software in Unix for mail reading/writing. pine is a security nightmare AFAIK. If the new version were able to support Maildir without to install additional patch, the Maildir also qmail would be more popular and thus more functional :-) a) I as many others don't care about pine b) qmail is _very_ functional, can't see any dependency to pine c) popularity isn't always the best goal Mutt - in my opinion is to "raw" and the all energy should gonna Maildir format to gain for it the "pine team". Maybe you just don't spend enough effort to understand mutt, but I won't start a MUA discussion here. If you want pine to support Maildirs natively (mutt does btw) contact the pine authors, this is _ways_ OT here. -- Henning Brauer | BS Web Services Hostmaster BSWS| Roedingsmarkt 14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg http://www.bsws.de | Germany
Re: [OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
Hello Maybe you just don't spend enough effort to understand mutt, but I won't This is the good opportunity to make functionality of Mutt better. I let to see to much porblems and this is reason, that I don't use Mutt with plesure. Piotr --- Piotr Kasztelowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [http://www.am.torun.pl/~pekasz]
Re: [OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 12:12:55AM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote: Maybe you just don't spend enough effort to understand mutt, but I won't start a MUA discussion here. If you want pine to support Maildirs natively (mutt does btw) contact the pine authors, this is _ways_ OT here. The author of PINE flat out refuses to support Maildir. --Adam
Re: [OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 11:45:31PM +, Piotr Kasztelowicz wrote: Hello Maybe you just don't spend enough effort to understand mutt, but I won't This is the good opportunity to make functionality of Mutt better. I let to see to much porblems and this is reason, that I don't use Mutt with plesure. Are you using babelfish to make your posts? Just wondering. Mutt is pretty intuitive. Not quite as intuitive as pine, but it should only take a few days for most pine users to make the switch. --Adam
Re: [OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
i've had lots of problems with mutt concerned its sorting. i've consistently seen mutt think messages from november 28th interpreted as being from january 4th, 2002, as an example. weird things like that. that's simply unacceptable to me. plus the whole idiotic self-quoting thing on the top of mutt's web page, and some other stuff on the web pages, just makes me think that the author is an idiot. but that's certainly not very objective reasoning. old redhat releases of pine included a patch for maildir support. however, pine is _extremely_ inefficient when it comes to large mailboxes (maildirs, i should say). get a few thousand messages in one, and pine will annoy you something awful. it seems to try to rebuild the message list in a box from scratch repeatedly every time certain operations are performed, or a timeout is met. very, very frustrating. for now i'm still using an old pine with the maildir patch, as that mutt date interpretation thing simply makes it impossible for me to use. i started writing my own mua that will probably be very, very minimal in features, just so i can avoid these stupid yet horrendous problems. i haven't done much with it recently, however, so who knows when it will be usable. pine's license is also kind of...not cool. but then again, people using qmail probably aren't very license-religious. chuckle. so shrug, lose-lose situation. -tcl.
Re: [OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
Hello take a few days for most pine users to make the switch. I will not say, that mutt is not-useful, but it could be better :-) For me - the first problem is how make, that the sent mail shall be placed in sent folder - Neverless it don't me simple :-( and I have to less time to sacrificate more time. I will say only, that the softwares provided for users (not for UNIX administrators) should be really simple to use! Maybe the exapmples of Muttrc files or especiall WWW on subject Mutt can help. I will say in my post, I will help no criticize to present the viewpoint of peoples, who are users no admins. It seems to be important how the software see the others, who don't aspirate to be qmail list subscribers! Piotr --- Piotr Kasztelowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [http://www.am.torun.pl/~pekasz]
Re: [OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:24:05 -0500 (EST), Piotr Kasztelowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: P I will not say, that mutt is not-useful, but it could be better :-) For P me - the first problem is how make, that the sent mail shall be placed P in sent folder. If you want a copy of all your sent messages, I'd use qmail for that instead of relying on anything else. Assuming your userid is "pekasz", have your MUA add a header to outgoing messages: Bcc: pekasz-bcc Create ~/.qmail-bcc holding the following line: | (preline /bin/cat; echo) $HOME/mail/sentmail This way, you get a copy of the message as it was seen by qmail. I've been using this method for quite some time with no problems. Since I use procmail to handle filtering, I also save portions of outgoing message headers in case I lose someone's address: % cat ~/.qmail-header | (preline formail -XFrom: -XSubject: -XDate: -XTo: -XCc: -XMessage-ID: ; echo) $HOME/mail/SENT.`/bin/date +%Yw%W` (all on one line, of course). -- Karl Vogel[EMAIL PROTECTED] ASC/YCOA, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433, USA Never criticize a man till you've walked a mile in his shoes. That way, you'll be a mile away from him and have his shoes as well. --Peter Salzman
Re: [OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 09:56:27PM -0500, Karl Vogel wrote: On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:24:05 -0500 (EST), Piotr Kasztelowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: P I will not say, that mutt is not-useful, but it could be better :-) For P me - the first problem is how make, that the sent mail shall be placed P in sent folder. set record=+sent The sample Muttrc file is pretty good reading. Regards.
Re: [OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 08:02:51PM -0500, tc lewis wrote: i've had lots of problems with mutt concerned its sorting. i've consistently seen mutt think messages from november 28th interpreted as being from january 4th, 2002, as an example. weird things like that. that's simply unacceptable to me. When sorting by date mutt only barfs when the date header is messed up. Are you sure the date headers in those messages are standards compliant? plus the whole idiotic self-quoting thing on the top of mutt's web page, and some other stuff on the web pages, just makes me think that the author is an idiot. but that's certainly not very objective reasoning. This is coming from someone who doesn't know what capitalization is. But you can't please them all, right? for now i'm still using an old pine with the maildir patch, as that mutt date interpretation thing simply makes it impossible for me to use. Like I said I've had no problems in this area except when the message itself was flawed. Are you sure you are using Mutt properly?
Re: [OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Alex Pennace wrote: On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 08:02:51PM -0500, tc lewis wrote: i've had lots of problems with mutt concerned its sorting. i've consistently seen mutt think messages from november 28th interpreted as being from january 4th, 2002, as an example. weird things like that. that's simply unacceptable to me. When sorting by date mutt only barfs when the date header is messed up. Are you sure the date headers in those messages are standards compliant? i would much rather simply sort by the mailbox. which i've tried. and it still gets messed up. why on earth do muas think they're smarter than mtas? whatever. but i was using an old version of mutt so who knows? plus the whole idiotic self-quoting thing on the top of mutt's web page, and some other stuff on the web pages, just makes me think that the author is an idiot. but that's certainly not very objective reasoning. This is coming from someone who doesn't know what capitalization is. But you can't please them all, right? this is the absolute worst argument i've ever heard in my entire life. don't ever email me again. for now i'm still using an old pine with the maildir patch, as that mutt date interpretation thing simply makes it impossible for me to use. Like I said I've had no problems in this area except when the message itself was flawed. Are you sure you are using Mutt properly? no, i'm not sure. i've been talking about this in private messages with someone else. i'm not sure that my use of mutt is perfect, altho i have no idea what i could possibly be messing up. nevertheless, if i have to mess around with it that much for it to be coherent for me to use, it's not the proper tool for me. to each his own. -tcl.
