I have been told that mutt will do what I want, so far how ever I have not
figured it out. I want to be able to do the following:
1. Check multiple pop accounts (say [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED])
2. When I reply to a message addressed to user1, I should reply with a
from header [EMAIL
On Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 11:19:53AM +1100, Andrew Clark wrote:
> I have been told that mutt will do what I want, so far how ever I have not
> figured it out. I want to be able to do the following:
>
> 1. Check multiple pop accounts (say [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> 2. When I reply t
Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I personally think it's a pity that mutt doesn't accomodate POP3 users
> a bit more. The fetchmail/procmail approach has one _major_ missing
> feature, it's not interactive and so can't allow the user to decide
> which mails to download from the POP3 ser
On 06-Dec-1999, David DeSimone wrote:
> As long as I've been using mail on the Internet, I've grown accustomed
> to mail just "showing up" in my account, without needing to worry about
> how it got there. Fetchmail's background fetching of POP mail fits very
> well into this model, whereby mail s
Ronny Haryanto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Some people doesn't have permanent internet connection, and it even
> costs them by the minute. Therefore selective downloading could make
> sense.
Certainly. I have to dial up to the Internet myself. Fetchmail is
configured to only poll POP server
On 06-Dec-1999, David DeSimone wrote:
> Ronny Haryanto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Some people doesn't have permanent internet connection, and it even
> > costs them by the minute. Therefore selective downloading could make
> > sense.
> Certainly. I have to dial up to the Internet myself. Fe
On Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 01:07:46PM -0600, David DeSimone wrote:
> What you really want is IMAP, not POP3. In fact, Mutt supports IMAP
> quite well in the development versions (1.1+), and it gives exactly the
> sort of interactivity that you seek. That is, in fact, what the IMAP
> protocol was de
On Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 01:46:27PM -0600, David DeSimone wrote:
> Ronny Haryanto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Some people doesn't have permanent internet connection, and it even
> > costs them by the minute. Therefore selective downloading could make
> > sense.
>
> Certainly. I have to di
On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 10:30:38AM +0200, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> > That's really the main reason that Mutt's POP3 support is so lame:
> > Because fetchmail does it better, so there's no point in doing all the
> > work to improve Mutt's support.
>
> Fetchmail is not interactive. Mutt could use
On Tue, 07 Dec 1999, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 01:46:27PM -0600, David DeSimone wrote:
> > Ronny Haryanto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Some people doesn't have permanent internet connection, and it even
> > > costs them by the minute. Therefore selective download
On Tuesday, 07 December 1999 at 09:10, Chris Green wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 10:30:38AM +0200, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> > > That's really the main reason that Mutt's POP3 support is so lame:
> > > Because fetchmail does it better, so there's no point in doing all the
> > > work to improve
On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 11:08:43AM -0500, Brendan Cully wrote:
> yes, but fetchmail is now a rather large and complex program, implying
> that incorporating even fetchmail's features into mutt makes a big
> bloated mess.
>
Would the POP3 features be more complex than the current IMAP4
features?
Adam Huffman [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Dec 1999, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> > Not quite. Fetchmail cannot download only headers of oversized
> > messages, nor can it delete them. I do not know a way to achieve this
> > in Linux short of telnetting to port 110. (Or, for that matter,
On Tue, Dec 07, 1999, Brendan Cully ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
|
| > Fetchmail I believe handles IMAP4 mailboxes quite well, why not
| > advocate that fetching IMAP4 mail isn't mutt's job either?
|
| fetchmail doesn't handle IMAP4 mailboxes well. It can download mail
| from your INBOX to your spool
On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 01:54:57AM -0700, Kim DeVaughn wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 1999, Brendan Cully ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> |
> | > Fetchmail I believe handles IMAP4 mailboxes quite well, why not
> | > advocate that fetching IMAP4 mail isn't mutt's job either?
> |
> | fetchmail doesn't handle
On 1999-12-08 01:54:57 -0700, Kim DeVaughn wrote:
> Or, if that isn't feasible for some reason, then developing a
> stand- alone "fetchimap" program would be the way to go.
You are free to write such a program, and you are also free to
design a generic interface between mutt and external mailbox
> > Or, if that isn't feasible for some reason, then developing a
> > stand- alone "fetchimap" program would be the way to go.
>
> You are free to write such a program, and you are also free to
> design a generic interface between mutt and external mailbox
> backends. Note, however, that just do
On Wed, Dec 08, 1999, Thomas Roessler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
|
| On 1999-12-08 01:54:57 -0700, Kim DeVaughn wrote:
|
| > Or, if that isn't feasible for some reason, then developing a
| > stand- alone "fetchimap" program would be the way to go.
|
| You are free to write such a program, and you a
On 1999-12-09 00:54:26 -0700, Kim DeVaughn wrote:
>> You are free to write such a program, and you are also free to
>> design a generic interface between mutt and external mailbox
>> backends. Note, however, that just downloading messages into
>> some local folder and using the usual mbox/maildi
On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 10:53:17AM +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 1999-12-09 00:54:26 -0700, Kim DeVaughn wrote:
>
> >> You are free to write such a program, and you are also free to
> >> design a generic interface between mutt and external mailbox
> >> backends. Note, however, that just dow
On 1999-12-09 10:45:23 +, Chris Green wrote:
> That isn't "All you can reasonably do with POP3", it's perfectly
> reasonable to treat a POP3 server as a single mailbox much the
> same as a local mailbox file. You can see a list of the E-Mail
> messages in a POP3 mailbox, you can selectively
On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 12:50:42PM +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> Show us working code, or stop complaining, please.
>
See tkrat, mahogany and several other Unix MUAs.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
On 1999-12-09 12:17:23 +, Chris Green wrote:
>> Show us working code, or stop complaining, please.
> See tkrat, mahogany and several other Unix MUAs.
Do these have working IMAP support in _external_ programs?
--
http://www.guug.de/~roessler/
> > That isn't "All you can reasonably do with POP3", it's perfectly
> > reasonable to treat a POP3 server as a single mailbox much the
> > same as a local mailbox file. You can see a list of the E-Mail
> > messages in a POP3 mailbox, you can selectively view messages in
> > a POP3 mailbox and yo
On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 01:34:06PM +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 1999-12-09 12:17:23 +, Chris Green wrote:
>
> >> Show us working code, or stop complaining, please.
>
> > See tkrat, mahogany and several other Unix MUAs.
>
> Do these have working IMAP support in _external_ programs?
>
On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 01:40:17PM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > Have you ever stored a message in a POP3 folder without going
> > through the mail transport agent, i.e., without resending the
> > message? There is no standard way to do this.
>
> I'm not even aware of a non-standard way
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I haven't yet encountered an ISP POP3 server that doesn't do TOP.
> I've only found one that didn't do UIDL.
So would you have mutt use, or not use, the TOP command, and the UIDL
command?
> Note that fetchmail quite happily uses "TOP n 99"
On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 01:40:18PM -0600, David DeSimone wrote:
:
:See, now we get to the case of why users are pointed to fetchmail:
:Because fetchmail has been bloated, er, I mean, specifically written to
:understand these buggy servers and try its best to deal with them.
:Trying to add this P
I've been lurking on this list for a while and monitoring this thread on
and off. Now it is time to uncloak.
A key point in the Unix philosophy is to keep it simple, stupid
(KISS). The Unix way is lots of very stupid little programs, which you can
then glue together in new ways to produce new and
On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 12:14:48PM -0800, Eugene Lee wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 01:40:18PM -0600, David DeSimone wrote:
> :
> :See, now we get to the case of why users are pointed to fetchmail:
> :Because fetchmail has been bloated, er, I mean, specifically written to
> :understand these bu
I'm a little reluctant to reply to this message since I guess I have a
personal interest in mutt's IMAP support, but what the hell...
On Thursday, 09 December 1999 at 00:54, Kim DeVaughn wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 1999, Thomas Roessler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> |
> | On 1999-12-08 01:54:57 -0700,
On Thursday, 09 December 1999 at 10:45, Chris Green wrote:
> IMAP4 - typically corporate or university 'intranet' with fast,
> reliable links to your IMAP mailboxes. Thus it makes
> sense to use IMAP4 maiboxes for everything.
>
> POP3 - typically used by individual (
> > I haven't yet encountered an ISP POP3 server that doesn't do TOP.
> > I've only found one that didn't do UIDL.
>
> So would you have mutt use, or not use, the TOP command, and the UIDL
> command?
I'd have it try both. If TOP fails, I'd have it give up in disgust,
because you might as well d
On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 04:17:25PM -0500, Brendan Cully wrote:
> In short, as David says, the bulk of fetchmail's code is dealing with
> weird, quirky POP servers reliably. I for one don't want to try to
> recreate fetchmail's years of experience in mutt. On the other hand, the
> IMAP code is almo
On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 10:47:36PM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
:
:I'd have it try both. If TOP fails, I'd have it give up in disgust,
:because you might as well download everything in that case, which
:means you might as well use fetchmail. If UIDL fails, I'd have it
:apply work-arounds, id
On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 03:42:09PM -0500, Tim Pierce wrote:
:
:For the record, I find "there are too many buggy POP3 servers to support
:effectively inside Mutt" a far more persuasive argument than "POP3 sucks
:and I'd rather see that it remains outside of Mutt."
If Mutt were to start supporting
On Fri, Dec 10, 1999 at 12:54:16PM -0800, Eugene Lee wrote:
> else is pushing POP3 beyond its intended design. Anyone else wanting
> additional features should use IMAP. Anyone wanting IMAP-like features
But there lies the rub - 99% of users of MUAs DON'T HAVE THAT CHOICE!!!
We can't just "use
Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Anyone else wanting additional features should use IMAP.
>
> But there lies the rub - 99% of users of MUAs DON'T HAVE THAT
> CHOICE!!! We can't just "use IMAP", the choice isn't there!
Then MAKE it happen! You are here, trying to push Mutt into confo
On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 02:10:13PM -0600, David DeSimone wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone else wanting additional features should use IMAP.
> >
> > But there lies the rub - 99% of users of MUAs DON'T HAVE THAT
> > CHOICE!!! We can't just "use IMAP", the choice isn't there!
>
> Then MAKE it happen! You a
In a gloomy night of Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 10:26:42AM -, these thoughts were sent
throught the matrix...
-> Then MAKE it happen! You are here, trying to push Mutt into conforming
-> to an ill-fitting standard, simply because that's all your ISP offers
-> you. Why aren't you, instead, puttin
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 01:47:34PM +, Blinking wrote:
> In a gloomy night of Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 10:26:42AM -, these thoughts were sent
>throught the matrix...
>
> -> Then MAKE it happen! You are here, trying to push Mutt into conforming
> -> to an ill-fitting standard, simply because
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 08:48:17AM +, Chris Green wrote:
:
:3 - If you search the list of UK ISPs (and there are hundreds) there
:are virtually none that offer IMAP4. It's just not going to
:happen I'm afraid, at least not for quite a while, in the meantime
:we are stuck with PO
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 07:56:33AM -0800, Eugene Lee wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 08:48:17AM +, Chris Green wrote:
> :
> :3 - If you search the list of UK ISPs (and there are hundreds) there
> :are virtually none that offer IMAP4. It's just not going to
> :happen I'm afraid, at
Chris Green [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> The one thing that I would like (and I think some other people would
> like) is a means to interactively decide what to do with mail in a
> POP3 mailbox. Fetchmail can't do this, the interactive requirement
> puts the facility squarely into the MUA I'm afr
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 04:26:51PM -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> Chris Green [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > The one thing that I would like (and I think some other people would
> > like) is a means to interactively decide what to do with mail in a
> > POP3 mailbox. Fetchmail can't do this, the i
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Chris Green wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 04:26:51PM -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> > Chris Green [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > > The one thing that I would like (and I think some other people would
> > > like) is a means to interactively decide what to do with mail in a
On Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 12:17:01PM +, Adam Huffman wrote:
> > 2 - Poppy still doesn't give the interaction I want, OK for some mail
> > messages I can deduce whether I want to download/delete/keep from
> > the Subject: and the size but this is not the case for most mail
> > message
47 matches
Mail list logo
