[ITP] email-2.3.0

2004-10-15 Thread Ross Smith II
I want to contribute/maintain email. Canonical website: http://email.cleancode.org/ Package setup.hint: === @ email category: Mail requires: cygwin ssmtp sdesc: "Command line sending of email with attachments, optional GnuPG" ldesc: "Command line sending of email, optionally with GnuPG encryption

Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0

2004-10-16 Thread Gerrit P. Haase
Ross Smith II wrote: I want to contribute/maintain email. Canonical website: http://email.cleancode.org/ Though I use nail for this, which unfortunately not included, please count +1 vote from me. Gerrit -- =^..^=

Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0

2004-10-17 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 10:13:33AM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: >Ross Smith II wrote: >>I want to contribute/maintain email. >> >>Canonical website: http://email.cleancode.org/ > >Though I use nail for this, which unfortunately not included, please >count +1 vote from me. I'm sorry but, here agai

Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0

2004-10-17 Thread Harold L Hunt II
Christopher Faylor wrote: [snip] Isn't there anyone out there who can perform the dead-simple act of packaging up nail for this purprose? Sorry, can't be done: nail has a file called aux.c... the apocalypse must be coming soon. Harold

Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0

2004-10-17 Thread Ross Smith II
Christopher Faylor wrote: > I'm sorry but, here again, we're talking about porting an AFAICT, > non-standard package to cygwin when we're missing something as basic as > "mailx" (or nail, or whatever). Given that argument, how would a new program ever become "standard"? > Isn't there anyone out

Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0

2004-10-17 Thread Harold L Hunt II
Ross Smith II wrote: [snip] Also, given that http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/nail/nail/README?rev=HEAD&view=markup states: "On the other hand, I strongly discourage from porting nail to Windows and environments that make Windows look Unix-like; I won't accept any patches or suggestions that g

RE: [ITP] email-2.3.0

2004-10-17 Thread Gary R. Van Sickle
[snip] > > Also, given that > > > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/nail/nail/README?rev=HEAD&view=m > > arkup > > states: > > > > "On the other hand, I strongly discourage from porting nail > to Windows > > and environments that make Windows look Unix-like; I won't > accept any > > patch

Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0

2004-10-18 Thread Igor Pechtchanski
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004, Harold L Hunt II wrote: > Ross Smith II wrote: > > [snip] > > > Also, given that > > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/nail/nail/README?rev=HEAD&view=markup > > states: > > > > "On the other hand, I strongly discourage from porting nail to Windows > > and environments that

Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0

2004-10-18 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Oct 18 08:42, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > On Sun, 17 Oct 2004, Harold L Hunt II wrote: > > Ross Smith II wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > Also, given that > > > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/nail/nail/README?rev=HEAD&view=markup > > > states: > > >[...] > > My general response to arguments

Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0

2004-10-18 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 10:45:10PM -0800, Ross Smith II wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: > > >> I'm sorry but, here again, we're talking about porting an AFAICT, >> non-standard package to cygwin when we're missing something as basic as >> "mailx" (or nail, or whatever). > >Given that argument, ho

Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0

2004-10-19 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 03:51:52PM -0800, Ross Smith II wrote: >I want to contribute/maintain email. > >Canonical website: http://email.cleancode.org/ > >Package setup.hint: >=== >@ email >category: Mail >requires: cygwin ssmtp >sdesc: "Command line sending of email with attachments, optional GnuPG

Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0

2004-10-23 Thread Gerrit P. Haase
Harold L Hunt II wrote: "... In short, porting nail (or similar free software) to Windows has an ill effect on that software. Don't do it." My general response to arguments like that is: fuck 'em. I'll port it just to be a thorn in the guys side. Bravo!!! Gerrit -- =^..^=

Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0

2004-10-23 Thread Gerrit P. Haase
Ross Smith II wrote: Isn't there anyone out there who can perform the dead-simple act of packaging up nail for this purprose? It can't be that simple to port, or someone would have already done it. Christ, I can't even untar nail to my Cygwin box as it contains a file named aux.c. Besides the aux.

Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0 (review)

2004-10-19 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 01:12:10PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >I think this means that the package has the required three votes and >is now ready for testing. I tried this out and noticed three things. 1) Should SMTP_AUTH be set in /etc/email/email.conf? I don't think it is standard to

Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0 (review)

2004-10-19 Thread Ross Smith II
Christopher Faylor wrote: > I tried this out and noticed three things. > > 1) Should SMTP_AUTH be set in /etc/email/email.conf? I don't think it >is standard to use authentication for sending email. Shouldn't it >be commented out? Yes, it should. > 2) The binary tar ball contains an em

Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0 (review)

2004-10-20 Thread Ross Smith II
I've fixed the issues Christopher listed below, and a couple more. 2.3.0-2 is now available. It now defaults to using ssmtp. If you want to use SMTP, you will need to run email-config. Package setup.hint: === @ email category: Mail requires: cygwin sdesc: "Command line sending of email with at

Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0 (review)

2004-10-20 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 06:32:36PM -0700, Ross Smith II wrote: >I've fixed the issues Christopher listed below, and a couple more. >2.3.0-2 is now available. > >It now defaults to using ssmtp. If you want to use SMTP, you will need >to run email-config. It's close but the SMTP_AUTH stuff still do

Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0 (review)

2004-10-21 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Oct 20 18:32, Ross Smith II wrote: > I've fixed the issues Christopher listed below, and a couple more. 2.3.0-2 is now > available. > > It now defaults to using ssmtp. If you want to use SMTP, you will need to run > email-config. I don't understand this one. Exim as well as ssmtp both have

Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0 (review)

2004-10-21 Thread Ross Smith II
Christopher Faylor wrote: > It's close but the SMTP_AUTH stuff still doesn't seem right. It only > offers "LOGIN" or "PLAIN". I chose PLAIN but I couldn't send email > using my non-SMTP_AUTH email server. I don't think any authorization > should be used at all as the default or at least there

Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0 (review)

2004-10-21 Thread Ross Smith II
Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Oct 20 18:32, Ross Smith II wrote: > I don't understand this one. Exim as well as ssmtp both have a config > script which sets /usr/sbin/sendmail so that it points to the real > executable, if /usr/sbin/sendmail doesn't exists. > > Wouldn't it be better to use /usr/s

Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0 (review)

2004-10-21 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 01:11:16PM -0800, Ross Smith II wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >>It's close but the SMTP_AUTH stuff still doesn't seem right. It only >>offers "LOGIN" or "PLAIN". I chose PLAIN but I couldn't send email >>using my non-SMTP_AUTH email server. I don't think any authoriza

Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0 (review)

2004-10-21 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 01:12:55PM -0800, Ross Smith II wrote: >Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > >> On Oct 20 18:32, Ross Smith II wrote: >> I don't understand this one. Exim as well as ssmtp both have a config >> script which sets /usr/sbin/sendmail so that it points to the real >> executable, if /usr

Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0 (review)

2004-10-21 Thread Ross Smith II
Sorry for all those glitches. I just took another setup.hint and modified it. I must not have grabbed a "nice" one. Thanks again for all the help, Ross Christopher Faylor wrote: > > I've uploaded this but I made a few changes to the setup.hint file. > > 1) I removed the extraneous '@ chere' f