Thorsten Haude wrote:
Hi,
* Day Brown wrote (2004-01-31 06:00):
Well, now thatcha mention it, I am somewhat bemused by the loss of email
functionality since I quit using QWKMAIL and the BBS nets, and went on
the internet.
I had similar thoughts. I used Crosspoint on Fido, and still
Hi,
* Day Brown wrote (2004-01-31 18:50):
Thorsten Haude wrote:
* Day Brown wrote (2004-01-31 06:00):
Well, now thatcha mention it, I am somewhat bemused by the loss of email
functionality since I quit using QWKMAIL and the BBS nets, and went on
the internet.
I had similar thoughts. I used
Well, now thatcha mention it, I am somewhat bemused by the loss of email
functionality since I quit using QWKMAIL and the BBS nets, and went on
the internet.
The BBS posts were 8 bit. You had the entire 256 IBM CMOS bitmaps.
The BBS posts offered ANSI color. It's not just mono like this. HTML
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 09:00:00PM -0800, Day Brown wrote:
Perhaps I have not expressed myself well, but the point is, that it is
more difficult to use email now than it used to be; given the reputation
of the computer business for 'progress', that's odd.
So are you looking for a solution?
On Friday, Jan 30, 2004, at 22:00 America/Denver, Day Brown wrote:
I see where people in email now continually complain of being
misquoted,
how attribution with the system of single, double, triple,.. angle
brackets is often misleading. But my QWKMAIL put my words up here in
amber, and before
Hi,
* Day Brown wrote (2004-01-31 06:00):
Well, now thatcha mention it, I am somewhat bemused by the loss of email
functionality since I quit using QWKMAIL and the BBS nets, and went on
the internet.
I had similar thoughts. I used Crosspoint on Fido, and still miss some
features from both.
-Original Message-
From: Ben Yau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Nate Duehr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Neither POP3 nor IMAP nor anything else will fix a problem at the
network level. This seems obvious. Either the network works well, or
it
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:59:15PM -0800, Curtis Vaughan wrote:
|
| hi ya curtis
|
| On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Curtis Vaughan wrote:
|
| But doesn't IMAP have more traffic involved than POP3? I mean each
| time you connect, it has to check to see what's on the server and
| what's on your computer.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 05:27:42PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
[...]
| It's not IMAP, alone, that provides this. It is the IMAP clients
| (such as isync or
Oops, I forgot to come back and fill this in after the apt-cache
search in the other window finished. I meant to say such as isync
Derrick writes:
One possibility is uuMail. It is a commercial mail tool (and protocol)
that does really high compression to minimize the bandwidth needed to
transfer messages.
A proprietary version of UUCP. Why not use the real thing?
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Hi,
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Ben Yau wrote:
True, but you can do your best to workaround the network issue. In this
case, a mail client that would actually do something akin to
retr 1
del 1
retr 2
del 2
retr 3
del 3
Instead of retrieving all messages _and then_ deleting
hi ya curtis
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Curtis Vaughan wrote:
But doesn't IMAP have more traffic involved than POP3? I mean each
time you connect, it has to check to see what's on the server and
what's on your computer. What would be best is a solution that just
w/ imap ... NOTHING is on your pc
hi ya curtis
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Curtis Vaughan wrote:
I know this is not a windows list and I have never yet asked a question
like this on here before, but perhaps there is someone who knows the
answer to this question.
Because our vessels have to get mail over lines that are rather
Hi,
* Curtis Vaughan wrote (2004-01-28 06:44):
I know this is not a windows list and I have never yet asked a question
like this on here before, but perhaps there is someone who knows the
answer to this question.
How about asking Microsoft support about it?
Thorsten
--
Jede Glorifizierung
hi ya curtis
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Curtis Vaughan wrote:
But doesn't IMAP have more traffic involved than POP3? I mean each
time you connect, it has to check to see what's on the server and
what's on your computer. What would be best is a solution that just
w/ imap ... NOTHING is on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 09:44:47PM -0800, Curtis Vaughan wrote:
Because our vessels have to get mail over lines that are rather shaky,
we would like them to pull mail in a way whereby once they've received
a message it is considered downloaded.
Hello Curtis,
I don't think everyone is fully appreciating the problem.
That makes 2 of us ;)
What comes to my mind:
a. (has been mentioned) use fetchmail to download the messages. Example
listing here:
# fetchmail -d0 -a -f /etc/fetchmailrc
4 messages for myname at
Curtis Vaughan wrote:
I know this is not a windows list and I have never yet asked a question
like this on here before, but perhaps there is someone who knows the
answer to this question.
Netscape and Mozilla support offline modes where a user can sync
themselves to the server and then be
-Original Message-
From: Nate Duehr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 8:00 AM
To: Curtis Vaughan
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Email client programs
Neither POP3 nor IMAP nor anything else will fix a problem at the
network level. This seems
Incoming from Erich Waelde:
I don't think everyone is fully appreciating the problem.
That makes 2 of us ;)
What comes to my mind:
a. (has been mentioned) use fetchmail to download the messages. Example
listing here:
# fetchmail -d0 -a -f /etc/fetchmailrc
4 messages for
-Original Message-
From: Alvin Oga [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 10:50 AM
To: Ben Yau
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Email client programs
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Ben Yau wrote:
True, but you can do your best to workaround the network issue
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Ben Yau wrote:
True, but you can do your best to workaround the network issue. In this
case, a mail client that would actually do something akin to
retr 1
del 1
retr 2
del 2
retr 3
del 3
Instead of retrieving all messages _and then_ deleting which is what
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 09:44:47PM -0800, Curtis Vaughan wrote:
I know this is not a windows list and I have never yet asked a question
like this on here before, but perhaps there is someone who knows the
answer to this question.
Because our vessels have to get mail over lines that are
I know this is not a windows list and I have never yet asked a question
like this on here before, but perhaps there is someone who knows the
answer to this question.
Because our vessels have to get mail over lines that are rather shaky,
we would like them to pull mail in a way whereby once
But doesn't IMAP have more traffic involved than POP3? I mean each
time you connect, it has to check to see what's on the server and
what's on your computer. What would be best is a solution that just
says, I don't care what you have or don't have, here are some new
messages. Take them.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:16:20PM -0800, Curtis Vaughan wrote:
But doesn't IMAP have more traffic involved than POP3? I mean each
time you connect, it has to check to see what's on the server and
what's on your computer. What would be best is a solution that just
says, I don't care what
On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 09:11:48AM -0600, Drew Raines wrote:
You can with mutt. Set pager_index_lines to a number greater than 0.
Nice feature. How does one switch between the panes?
--
Sridhar M.A. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't look now, but there is a
on Fri, 28 Dec 2001 01:40:09PM +0530, Sridhar M.A. insinuated:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 09:11:48AM -0600, Drew Raines wrote:
You can with mutt. Set pager_index_lines to a number greater than 0.
Nice feature. How does one switch between the panes?
not sure what you mean by panes ...
Craig Dickson wrote:
Erik Steffl wrote:
Also, with fetchmail, you don't have to bother telling your mail client
about your POP or IMAP server -- it's one less thing to configure if you
provided that you want to download emails from IMAP which is not a
very good way to use IMAP.
Craig Dickson wrote:
...
If good IMAP support was common in mail clients, I'd probably be more
inclined to explore it, but in my experience many clients either don't
support IMAP, or the support is limited and/or buggy.
it's getting better, IMO it's a lot simler than file storage support
Erik Steffl [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
the problem with text based MUAs is that you cannot see
folders/index/message at the same time... (AFAIK, haven't found it in mutt
or pine)
You can with mutt. Set pager_index_lines to a number greater than 0.
--
Drew
that it works very well. I dont think we have ever had any
problems with it. We have Exchange
server problems, but no client problems. Therefore, clients will be expecting the same quality
no problems.
I have tried out a number of email client programs, but am not satisfied
by any one of them. I have
that it works very well. I don't think we have ever had any problems with
it. We have Exchange server problems, but no client problems. Therefore,
clients will be expecting the same quality - no problems.
I have tried out a number of email client programs, but am not satisfied by
any one of them. I have
on freshmeat for
rdesktop). That way all the software that you haven't foudn
replacements for runs on the terminal server.
I have tried out a number of email client programs, but am not satisfied by
any one of them. I have tried out, KMail, Evolution, Netscape and Mozilla,
oh and the email client
One of the reasons is monetary. Why pay MS for what is already out there,
and works just as well?
The other reason is example. We know of another company that is totally
Linux-based and has no problems. They can work not just at work, but also
from home or from any computer anywhere through a
. It's another attempt by
MS to force you to exclusively use their products since their software
won't work with other products.
Nice of them, isn't it?
I have tried out a number of email client programs, but am not satisfied by
any one of them. I have tried out, KMail, Evolution, Netscape
On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Vaughan, Curtis wrote:
One of the reasons is monetary. Why pay MS for what is already out there,
and works just as well?
The other reason is example. We know of another company that is totally
Linux-based and has no problems. They can work not just at work, but also
imo it's very useful to have the eamil deliverystorage separate from
email clients.
from this point of view the ideal situation is to use IMAP, server
side filtering (like sieve with cyrus) and let them use any clients they
want...
not sure how to get there from exchange, does exchange
On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Erik Steffl wrote:
imo it's very useful to have the eamil deliverystorage separate from
email clients.
from this point of view the ideal situation is to use IMAP, server
side filtering (like sieve with cyrus) and let them use any clients they
want...
from a
Erik Steffl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
imo it's very useful to have the eamil deliverystorage separate from
email clients.
from this point of view the ideal situation is to use IMAP, server
side filtering (like sieve with cyrus) and let them use any clients they
want...
not sure
Brian Nelson wrote:
...
Sylpheed is supposed to be a nice GUI mailer, though I haven't tried
it.
Evolution is supposedly out of beta, though I wouldn't be surprised if
it crashed a lot, as you mentioned. KMail has weak IMAP support.
Mozilla Mail is still too buggy, as is Balsa. Netscape
Lev Lvovsky wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Erik Steffl wrote:
imo it's very useful to have the eamil deliverystorage separate from
email clients.
from this point of view the ideal situation is to use IMAP, server
side filtering (like sieve with cyrus) and let them use any clients
stable that I am aware of. Of
course, I don't know a hell of a lot yet.
[...]
I have tried out a number of email client programs, but am not satisfied by
any one of them. I have tried out, KMail, Evolution, Netscape and Mozilla,
oh and the email client program with StarOffice. Each one has
Brian Nelson wrote:
... but I don't think I could get our users to go over to a non-GUI
program.
Why is that? Because they've bought into the marketing pitch that
pretty graphics == better software? That's bullshit. There's no good
reason any user couldn't become more proficient with
On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Craig Dickson wrote:
Brian Nelson wrote:
... but I don't think I could get our users to go over to a non-GUI
program.
Why is that? Because they've bought into the marketing pitch that
pretty graphics == better software? That's bullshit. There's no good
Erik Steffl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ES what's this netscpae 4.x bashing I see repeatedly? IMO it's a fairly
ES good email client, stable (well, as stable as browser and it's really
ES only stable when you disable java), has the main MUA features...
Issues with netscape mail at MIT:
-- It has
David Z Maze wrote:
Erik Steffl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ES what's this netscpae 4.x bashing I see repeatedly? IMO it's a fairly
ES good email client, stable (well, as stable as browser and it's really
ES only stable when you disable java), has the main MUA features...
Issues with
Erik Steffl wrote:
IMO the MUA should not handle storage of email, so this is a non an
issue:-) [the real causality goes in the other way]
Well, the MUA should not have to worry about retrieval from POP servers.
That's fetchmail's job. But certainly the MUA is the thing for
interactively
On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Craig Dickson wrote:
Well, the MUA should not have to worry about retrieval from POP servers.
That's fetchmail's job. But certainly the MUA is the thing for
interactively moving mails from one folder to another.
why the insistence on fetchmail?
-lev
On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Craig Dickson wrote:
the problem with text based MUAs is that you cannot see
folders/index/message at the same time... (AFAIK, haven't found it in
mutt or pine)
Right, AFAIK you can't do that in mutt. On the other hand, I don't find
that essential. GKrellM shows me
also sprach Lev Lvovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2001.12.27.0144 +0100]:
Well, the MUA should not have to worry about retrieval from POP servers.
That's fetchmail's job. But certainly the MUA is the thing for
interactively moving mails from one folder to another.
why the insistence on
Lev Lvovsky wrote:
why the insistence on fetchmail?
Without fetchmail or something like it, if your network is down when you
decide to run your mail client, you can't check your mail server for new
messages. Even if the network is up, you have to wait while the client
connects to the server and
Craig Dickson wrote:
Erik Steffl wrote:
IMO the MUA should not handle storage of email, so this is a non an
issue:-) [the real causality goes in the other way]
Well, the MUA should not have to worry about retrieval from POP servers.
That's fetchmail's job. But certainly the MUA is
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, martin f krafft wrote:
why the insistence on fetchmail?
it's the unix philosophy -- let one program do its job and do it well,
let other programs use that...
hehe, really? I guess you can count mozilla out ;)
while I like the concept of modularity, I can't imagine
Craig Dickson wrote:
Lev Lvovsky wrote:
why the insistence on fetchmail?
...
Also, with fetchmail, you don't have to bother telling your mail client
about your POP or IMAP server -- it's one less thing to configure if you
provided that you want to download emails from IMAP which is not
On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Craig Dickson wrote:
Lev Lvovsky wrote:
why the insistence on fetchmail?
Without fetchmail or something like it, if your network is down when you
decide to run your mail client, you can't check your mail server for new
messages. Even if the network is up, you have to
Erik Steffl wrote:
mail retrieval is indeed separate issue (and it can be both job of
fetchamil (active retrieval) and MTA (accepting delivery))
then there's mail storage - IMO the task for IMAP server
only then the MUA comes in - in between user and IMAP, the actual
email
Erik Steffl wrote:
Also, with fetchmail, you don't have to bother telling your mail client
about your POP or IMAP server -- it's one less thing to configure if you
provided that you want to download emails from IMAP which is not a
very good way to use IMAP. I guess it's desirable in
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 05:36:15PM -0800, Lev Lvovsky wrote:
| On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, martin f krafft wrote:
|
| why the insistence on fetchmail?
|
| it's the unix philosophy -- let one program do its job and do it well,
| let other programs use that...
|
| hehe, really? I guess you can
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 11:46:44AM -0800, Vaughan, Curtis wrote:
| I am wondering what other Debian Users recommend for an email client
| program.
I like mutt the best. It is good, makes good use of screen
real-estate, has good threading and list support, and is light, fast,
and stable. The one
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 05:32:31PM -0800, Erik Steffl wrote:
Craig Dickson wrote:
...
I guess, I still like to see it all at once... I guess I can open few
windows, each with it's own view:-)
BTW the other annoying thing is that it requires password to IMAP
everytime I start it - is
Carel Fellinger wrote:
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 05:32:31PM -0800, Erik Steffl wrote:
Craig Dickson wrote:
...
I guess, I still like to see it all at once... I guess I can open few
windows, each with it's own view:-)
BTW the other annoying thing is that it requires password to IMAP
62 matches
Mail list logo
