Re: netscape bus error

2002-04-22 Thread 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. Ne

Re: netscape bus error

2002-04-21 Thread 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

Re: netscape bus error

2002-04-19 Thread 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 > | Net

Re: netscape bus error

2002-04-18 Thread 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 ent

Re: netscape bus error

2002-04-18 Thread 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

netscape bus error

2002-04-18 Thread 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

netscape bus error

2002-04-18 Thread 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 hav

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

2000-08-28 Thread 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 t

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

2000-08-28 Thread 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. > ... >

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

2000-08-27 Thread 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 u

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

2000-08-26 Thread 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 f

Re: Netscape Bus Error

2000-08-25 Thread 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 co

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

2000-08-25 Thread 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.

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

2000-08-24 Thread 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 ~/.procmail

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

2000-08-24 Thread 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

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

2000-08-24 Thread 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 hand

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

2000-08-24 Thread 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 matte

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

2000-08-24 Thread 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 matt

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

2000-08-24 Thread 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 c

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

2000-08-23 Thread 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

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

2000-08-23 Thread 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,

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

2000-08-23 Thread 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 grumpi

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

2000-08-23 Thread 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 t

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

2000-08-23 Thread 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, PMM

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

2000-08-23 Thread 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 Inbox

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

2000-08-23 Thread 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

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

2000-08-23 Thread 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

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

2000-08-23 Thread 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-

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

2000-08-23 Thread 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 mach

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

2000-08-23 Thread 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

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

2000-08-23 Thread 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 termi

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

2000-08-23 Thread 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 f

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

2000-08-23 Thread 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 t

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

2000-08-23 Thread 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) procmai

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

2000-08-22 Thread 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

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

2000-08-22 Thread 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) P

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

2000-08-22 Thread 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 u

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

2000-08-22 Thread 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 accou

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

2000-08-22 Thread 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

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

2000-08-22 Thread 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 folde

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

2000-08-22 Thread 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 abou

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

2000-08-22 Thread 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.

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

2000-08-22 Thread 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

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

2000-08-22 Thread 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 att

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

2000-08-22 Thread 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

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

2000-08-22 Thread 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 accou

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

2000-08-22 Thread 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 accoun

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

2000-08-22 Thread 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 sof

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

2000-08-22 Thread 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

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

2000-08-22 Thread 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

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

2000-08-22 Thread 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 hav

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

2000-08-22 Thread 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

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

2000-08-21 Thread 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. ^^

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

2000-08-21 Thread 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

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

2000-08-21 Thread 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.

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

2000-08-21 Thread 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 da

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

2000-08-21 Thread 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 separat

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

2000-08-21 Thread 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. Rig

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

2000-08-21 Thread 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 acc

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

2000-08-21 Thread 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 up

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

2000-08-21 Thread 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.

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

2000-08-21 Thread 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

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

2000-08-21 Thread 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

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

2000-08-21 Thread 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 t

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

2000-08-21 Thread 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

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

2000-08-21 Thread 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 conne

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

2000-08-19 Thread 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

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

2000-08-19 Thread 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 t

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

2000-08-19 Thread 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? ---

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

2000-08-16 Thread 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)

2000-08-16 Thread 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))

2000-08-16 Thread 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 clien

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

2000-08-16 Thread 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. Messa

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

2000-08-16 Thread 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)

2000-08-16 Thread 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)

2000-08-16 Thread 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

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

2000-08-16 Thread 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 try

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

2000-08-16 Thread 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 (con

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

2000-08-16 Thread 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 o

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

2000-08-16 Thread 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

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

2000-08-16 Thread 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 mo

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

2000-08-16 Thread 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 wa

Re: Netscape Bus Error

2000-08-16 Thread 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

Re: Netscape Bus Error

2000-08-16 Thread 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 PROTECT

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

2000-08-16 Thread 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

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

2000-08-16 Thread 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

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

2000-08-16 Thread 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

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

2000-08-16 Thread 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 basi

Re: Netscape Bus Error

2000-08-16 Thread 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 b

Re: Netscape Bus Error

2000-08-16 Thread 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 st

Re: Netscape Bus Error

2000-08-16 Thread 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 i

Netscape Bus Error

2000-08-15 Thread 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 7d82M

Re: netscape bus error

2000-03-18 Thread 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 <[EMA

Re: netscape bus error

2000-03-17 Thread 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 > navigat

Re: netscape bus error

2000-03-17 Thread 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? --

netscape bus error

2000-03-17 Thread 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 in

Re: Netscape -- Bus Error

2000-01-24 Thread 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 Er

Netscape -- Bus Error

2000-01-24 Thread 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. Tha

Re: netscape bus error

2000-01-23 Thread 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

Re: netscape bus error

2000-01-23 Thread 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 syste

  1   2   >