Just curious -- which country are you calling 'this'?
The UK, well England if you want to be pedantic. I understand it was popular
elsewhere, but the UK is all I can comment on.
___
maemo-users mailing list
maemo-users@maemo.org
On 11 Sep 2008, at 16:24, Mark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 5:35 AM, Matt Emson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark wrote:
You are so incredibly wrong.
About?
Pretty much everything...
Well, no. You stated that only embedded and handhelds use ARM
processors. Obviously, this is
Mark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Baloney! You really don't know what you are talking about. Unique
message ID's are part of the internet mail standard. I've never seen a
message that
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 08:32:43PM -0600, Mark wrote:
The bottom line is that IMAP is totally unnecessary and irrelevant.
It's yet another case of a competing standard that only complicates
the world and doesn't provide any real advantages.
I frankly don't understand this...
Going to the
Mark wrote:
You are so incredibly wrong.
About? That the Archimedes uses ARM processors, um, no. Acorn designed
the original ARM processor. The A in ARM originally stood for Acorn.
That my A7000 is an embedded device in disguise? No, it's a full desktop
machine, uses standard RAM, standard
Mark wrote:
You are so incredibly wrong. My point was that yes, an ARM system is
definitely capable of running either an IMAP or a POP3 server, and
that storage and network bandwidth would be much more of a factor than
the system processor. Clearly, the ARM systems you're referring to are
NOT
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Baloney! You really don't know what you are talking about. Unique
message ID's are
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Alberto Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 08:32:43PM -0600, Mark wrote:
The bottom line is that IMAP is totally unnecessary and irrelevant.
It's yet another case of a competing standard that only complicates
the world and doesn't provide
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 09:13:40AM -0600, Mark wrote:
...all of which can just as easily be done with POP3.
How can I have multiple e-mail folders with POP3 ?
--
Alberto García González
http://people.igalia.com/berto/
___
maemo-users mailing list
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Alberto Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 09:13:40AM -0600, Mark wrote:
...all of which can just as easily be done with POP3.
How can I have multiple e-mail folders with POP3 ?
--
Alberto García González
On Thursday 11/09/2008 09:30, Mark said...
...all of which can just as easily be done with POP3.
How can I have multiple e-mail folders with POP3 ?
Use Procmail to filter and direct messages to different mail files
(folders).
You mean in the mail server? And how can I switch between
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Alberto Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 11/09/2008 09:30, Mark said...
...all of which can just as easily be done with POP3.
How can I have multiple e-mail folders with POP3 ?
Use Procmail to filter and direct messages to different mail files
Mark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Baloney! You really don't know what you are talking
Can we all just drop this..
Under diablo there is
1) Modest
2) Claws
If you can't use one of those stick to Chinook and osso-mail; you are
also free to compile or port your own mail app.
The nitty gritty discussion about who has the bigger, faster, more
redundant, message-ID's is getting old.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark ([EMAIL
Well said..
Im kinda getting fed up with my beutiful and serene N810 start
screaming every 5min for xx new mails on which mail klient or server
implementation can pis the farthest :p
Just my 0.1€ of input on this very boring subject atm
//Chris
11 sep 2008 kl. 18.58 skrev Eric
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:44:02AM -0600, Mark wrote:
...all of which can just as easily be done with POP3.
How can I have multiple e-mail folders with POP3 ?
Use Procmail to filter and direct messages to different mail files
(folders).
You mean in the mail server? And how can I
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Eric Warnke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can we all just drop this..
Under diablo there is
1) Modest
2) Claws
3) Webmail
4) Telnet, SSH, rlogin to your favorite local text email client.
5) VNC to whatever desktop client you're using.
If you can't use one
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:15:49AM -0600, Mark wrote:
So there are features that IMAP has that POP3 doesn't ??
What are those features ??
The features that the IMAP clients, not the protocol, present
as assets are exactly the same as you get through any Webmail
interface. POP clients
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Alberto Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So there are features that IMAP has that POP3 doesn't ??
What are those features ??
--
Alberto García González
http://people.igalia.com/berto/
The features that the IMAP clients, not the protocol, present as
assets
Hi,
Mark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there's something you want that isn't yet implemented in
open source, either implement it yourself, or gently request that
someone who can implement do so --- or perhaps you can hire them or
otherwise
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 09:54:14AM +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
With commercial software the I'm paying money for this software
argument carries some (but not much, in my experience) weight with the
maintainers, which it obviously doesn't with Free Software.
At least in theory, this can work
Mark wrote:
Your setup may be able to handle IMAP just fine, but it could at least
as easily handle POP3. If you're running it on an ARM system you
clearly are not leaving messages (especially with large attachments)
on the server indefinitely (there's no ARM system I know of that has
the
Riku Voipio wrote:
Mark wrote:
Your setup may be able to handle IMAP just fine, but it could at least
as easily handle POP3. If you're running it on an ARM system you
clearly are not leaving messages (especially with large attachments)
on the server indefinitely (there's no ARM system I
El Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:53:40 -0600
Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
The discussion is about real mail servers
My server is as real as it gets, in fact I'm using it every day.
that are running on the
Internet somewhere else
check
and serving large numbers of accounts, with
why? I don't
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 6:56 AM, Matt Emson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Riku Voipio wrote:
Mark wrote:
Your setup may be able to handle IMAP just fine, but it could at least
as easily handle POP3. If you're running it on an ARM system you
clearly are not leaving messages (especially with
Mark wrote:
You are so incredibly wrong. My point was that yes, an ARM system is
ultimately, IMAP 1) ALWAYS uses more storage than POP3, and 2)
Heh.
't.
___
maemo-users mailing list
maemo-users@maemo.org
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 03:58:26PM -0600, Mark wrote:
This sounds like going to a whole lot of work to do something that
I've been doing for years with POP3 without any additional server or
software...
It's actually very
On Sep 10, 2008, at 9:32 PM, Mark wrote:
Once again, nice theory, but very far from reality. In reality, *very*
few open source products approach anything like the reliability,
usability, versatility or feature set of their commercial competition.
Yes, a few projects beat their commercial
Mark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Baloney! You really don't know what you are talking about. Unique
message ID's are part of the internet mail standard. I've never seen a
message that didn't have a unique Message ID.
I get tons and tons of different spam messages, sharing the same message
id.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Baloney! You really don't know what you are talking about. Unique
message ID's are part of the internet mail standard. I've never seen a
message that didn't have a unique Message ID.
I get
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Tuukka Tolvanen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark wrote:
You are so incredibly wrong. My point was that yes, an ARM system is
ultimately, IMAP 1) ALWAYS uses more storage than POP3, and 2)
Heh.
't.
That's more than a little cryptic, but I have to assume that
El Mon, 8 Sep 2008 15:15:21 -0600
Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
The crux of the matter is in specifically *what* resources are in
question. IMAP may have an initial savings in network bandwidth (which
is debatable), but ultimately uses much more in the way of every other
type of computing
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Luca Olivetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
El Mon, 8 Sep 2008 15:15:21 -0600
Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
The crux of the matter is in specifically *what* resources are in
question. IMAP may have an initial savings in network bandwidth (which
is debatable),
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 01:53:40PM -0600, Mark wrote:
Anyway, I didn't say that IMAP was a resource hog in the grand
scheme of computing, only in comparison with POP3.
It really depends on how the IMAP/POP3 server was implemented. Some
POP3 servers are implemented optimizing for the case
Hi,
Tim Ashman wrote:
Ok, so I've upgraded to diablo over the weekend and for the most part it is
great. However I can't stand modest, it just doesn't work in a way that
works for me and it appears to have bugs that the older email didn't.
If you don't like Modest, you might want to try
Matt Emson wrote:
If I then checked my main email client, sure enough it was there
To clarify - if I check me email later on that day on my MacBook - when
no other client had attempted to download the email since the N800 has
attempted to. i.e. the email *does* exist.
M
On Monday 08 September 2008 16:58:06 Matt Emson wrote:
Not solving any of Tim's issues - reporting some of my own:
1) Email will not open - quite often I'll double tap on an email and it
does not open, but I can see it is downloaded by the little progress bar
in the bottom corner. If I click
Mark wrote:
The assertion that IMAP is better for use on multiple computers is
absolutely untrue, as I have had great success with POP3 on multiple
computers for many years. The truth is that I have more precise
control, with much less fussing and finagling, with POP3 than with
IMAP. As a
For privacy and robustness use your own server. Make it as dependable as
you wish. I didn't mention something that seemed obvious to me: Encrypt
everything! Use strong encryption, encrypt mail boxes or whole drives. For
sensitive messages exchange the keys with your correspondents.
julius
On
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Julius Szelagiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For privacy and robustness use your own server. Make it as dependable as
you wish. I didn't mention something that seemed obvious to me: Encrypt
everything! Use strong encryption, encrypt mail boxes or whole drives.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Aniello Del Sorbo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wanted to write that I don't think Andre Klapper wanted to be
rude and force others to follow his own ideas.
I might be wrong, of course, but having followed his work on Maemo as
bugmaster and having read
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Julius Szelagiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
For privacy and robustness use your own server. Make it as dependable as
you wish. I didn't mention something that seemed obvious to me: Encrypt
everything! Use strong
On Monday 08 September 2008 22:01:36 Gary wrote:
Mark wrote:
Um, no, maybe it's one of those ugly hacks, but viewing just the
headers is possible with POP3. Also, telneting to pine gives the
equivalent functionality *without* any hacks.
Perhaps with some mail clients but it's not part of
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Gary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark wrote:
Um, no, maybe it's one of those ugly hacks, but viewing just the
headers is possible with POP3. Also, telneting to pine gives the
equivalent functionality *without* any hacks.
Perhaps with some mail clients but it's
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Aniello Del Sorbo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wanted to write that I don't think Andre Klapper wanted to be
rude and force others to follow his own ideas.
I might be wrong, of course, but having
Mark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Aniello Del Sorbo[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wanted to write that I don't think Andre Klapper wanted to be
rude and force others to follow his own ideas.
I might be wrong, of course, but having followed his work on Maemo as
bugmaster and
On Monday 08 September 2008 06:39:05 am Andre Klapper wrote:
Am Montag, den 08.09.2008, 06:22 -0700 schrieb Tim Ashman:
My first choice at this point would be to just be able to install the
older email and ditch modest.
I don't think that osso-email has been ported to Diablo.
Nobody works
On Monday 08 September 2008 07:23:47 am Peter Bart wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:12:09 +0200
Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Tim Ashman wrote:
Ok, so I've upgraded to diablo over the weekend and for the most
part it is great. However I can't stand modest, it just doesn't
On Monday 08 September 2008 08:21:21 am Sergio Villar Senin wrote:
Hi Tim,
Tim Ashman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Data:
Mon, 8 Sep 2008 06:22:50 -0700
Para:
maemo-users@maemo.org
Para:
maemo-users@maemo.org
Ok, so I've upgraded to diablo over the weekend and for the most part it
is
On Monday 08 September 2008 10:32:10 am James Knott wrote:
Mark wrote:
The assertion that IMAP is better for use on multiple computers is
absolutely untrue, as I have had great success with POP3 on multiple
computers for many years. The truth is that I have more precise
control, with much
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Tim Ashman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For a POP account the messages are deleted from the server unless you
check the option Leave messages on server which is checked by default.
As you could see the more conservative option is the default one.
Yes, I do have
On Monday 08 September 2008 11:34:03 am Mark wrote:
Again, this is a *limitation*, not an asset, as far as I am concerned.
I find it ironic that people who are ordinarily paranoid about
privacy, reliability, control, etc. don't have a problem putting their
faith in some server that could be
On Monday 08 September 2008 11:43:01 am Julius Szelagiewicz wrote:
All that said, I still can't fathom why would anyone really want all the
email on a mobile device that is prone to loss or failure when dropped.
Having a tiny Linux server that fetches all your email from all the
sources, puts
On Monday 08 September 2008 03:44:19 pm Mark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Tim Ashman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For a POP account the messages are deleted from the server unless you
check the option Leave messages on server which is checked by default.
As you could see the more
55 matches
Mail list logo
