> > Mutt doesnt ask for it - and postfix / exim / qmail dont implement DSN at all
>
> Postfix now supports DNS:
>
> Major changes with snapshot-2924
>
>
> DSN formatted bounced/delayed mail notifications, finally. The
> human-
On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 02:52:01PM -0700, Monte Milanuk wrote:
> I highly recommend the script 'install-sendmail' available at:
>
> http://cork.linux.ie/projects/install-sendmail/
Well, it may be wonderfull, but it didn't work for me -- I really, do
not remember, what was the problem. But cer
> oddities. Meanwhile, Fetchmail, which actually exists to fit this role,
> works to actually address all these things, and if you want to pop mail to
> your machine from a remote account, something like this still makes the
> most sense to use. If you don't like Fetchmail, you can use one of th
Brendan Cully [mutt-users] :
>nail. I've talked to him about IMAP and seen him trying to read his
>mail on the road, and at least a couple of years ago he didn't
>really seem to understand what IMAP was for. Probably had something
>to do with the paucity of decent IMAP clients th
* On [010517 19:15] Mike Schiraldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey, i'm sick of using external encryption suites like GPG. I think mutt
> should absorb all their functionality. And all those external apps in
> .mailcap, too. And i'm sick of having to install Unix before i can use
> mutt. mutt is
Brendan Cully wrote:
> IMAP always gets dragged into this, and it's a red herring. Fetchmail
> cannot fully replace the functionality of mutt's IMAP code, and
> neither can any other tool. IMAP is a mailbox driver, and as such is
> the province of the MUA.
What confuses me about fetchmail is that
On Wed, 16 May 2001 12:54:05 -0400 Mike Schiraldi wrote:
> > Mutt needs mindshare. Otherwise we all lose. Some day you'll wake up and
> > mutt won't be able to read mail cause 99% of the world is using
> > proprietary MS|Sun|Oracle|Whatever extensions.
> The best protection against all those exte
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 06:35:24AM +0200, Thomas Roessler
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 2001-05-16 20:22:09 -0400, Rich Lafferty wrote:
>
> >You'd be surprised. "Use mutt with -x" is a standard answer to the
> >(increasingly common) question, "How can I send mail with an
> >attachment from m
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 05:27:44PM -0400, William Park wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:04:18PM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > On 2001-05-16 16:39:32 -0400, Mr. Wade wrote:
> >
> > >Mutt also has a built-in editor, "crappy" or otherwise, not that I
> > >make a habit of using it very often.
On 2001-05-16 20:22:09 -0400, Rich Lafferty wrote:
>You'd be surprised. "Use mutt with -x" is a standard answer to the
>(increasingly common) question, "How can I send mail with an
>attachment from my noninteractive process?" (Except that they
>usually mispel "noninteractive process" as "CGI s
Thomas Roessler [mutt-users] :
> Pine also includes a crappy editor (pico - which is nevertheless
> used by some people in order to ruin their configuration files), and
> a full-blown file manager (pilot, if I recall this correctly).
Pico is a pretty good editor for newbies (at whom pine wa
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 05:27:44PM -0400, William Park ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:04:18PM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > On 2001-05-16 16:39:32 -0400, Mr. Wade wrote:
> >
> > >Mutt also has a built-in editor, "crappy" or otherwise, not that I
> > >make a habit of
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:04:18PM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2001-05-16 16:39:32 -0400, Mr. Wade wrote:
>
> >Mutt also has a built-in editor, "crappy" or otherwise, not that I
> >make a habit of using it very often. unset $editor or specify
> >"-x" on the commandline, not that I make
On 2001-05-16 16:39:32 -0400, Mr. Wade wrote:
>Mutt also has a built-in editor, "crappy" or otherwise, not that I
>make a habit of using it very often. unset $editor or specify
>"-x" on the commandline, not that I make a practice of using it
>very often. :o)
It doesn't even have a full-scre
On 2001-05-16 15:24:24 -0400, Brendan Cully wrote:
>what would be cool is if you could say
>sendmail='securesendmail -u $smtp_user -p $smtp_pass'
>ie mutt exposes its config variables, and reevaluates them when
>running the command. But I haven't thought about how to do that,
>it's certainly i
Thomas Roessler wrote:
> Pine also includes a crappy editor (pico - which is nevertheless
> used by some people in order to ruin their configuration files), and
> a full-blown file manager (pilot, if I recall this correctly).
>
> Just don't quote it as an example.
>
> (OK, we have a directory
On 2001-05-16 23:31:03 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>Pine for instance? It normally delivers to local sendmail, but
>will happily deliver to an external delivery server (using
>sendmail -bs and talking smtp)
Pine also includes a crappy editor (pico - which is nevertheless
used by som
Some people wrote:
> > Sorry, but Unix is built out of tools. Use them (or use Emacs, which
> > has everything built in).
> >
> You mean mutt should be like emacs and have everything built-in?
Not to start another flamewar, but emacs doesn't have everything
"built-in". Rather, functionality is e
On 2001-05-16 17:01:16 +0200, Dumas Patrice wrote:
>It is my opinion, and I am not a sysadmin, but if I were ;-), I
>wouldn't like sendmail or even postfix to be installed on
>workstations, as I think it is bad and unusefull in a classical
>LAN architecture. sSMTP is a good replacement, but ha
Biju Chacko proclaimed on mutt-users that:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:40:33PM +0200, Andre Majorel wrote:
> > Then you would better serve your agenda by contributing to that
> > project than by lobbying for Mutt to bend in that direction. If
> > you want to work on an SMTP-aware MUA, more pow
On Wed, May 16, 2001, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> Yes, telling the user "try later" or "postpone your message and fix your
> config" is better than injecting the message into a poorly configured
> /usr/sbin/sendail that will drop it on the floor without reporting it.
What a great alternative
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 05:50:34PM +0200, Louis-David Mitterrand ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> * On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 07:54:01AM -0700, Claus Assmann wrote:
> > On Wed, May 16, 2001, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> >
> > > > You're going to add an MTA first (reimplement sendmail). Then
> > >
On 2001-05-16 19:31 +0530, Biju Chacko wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:40:33PM +0200, Andre Majorel wrote:
> > But don't make Mutt users pay for something they won't use.
>
> While I agree with the need to keep one's MUAs and MTAs seperate, I find your
> argument flawed. There are literally d
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 04:11:46PM +0200, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> * On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 03:50:45PM +0200, Frank Derichsweiler wrote:
> > Sorry, but _IMHO_ a person not willing to install / use a MTA separat
> > from Mutt will not use mutt either. He want to use some software with
> > a
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 05:01:16PM +0200, Dumas Patrice wrote:
> When users haven't root privileges, it isn't possible to configure
> any MTA I know. Maybe there exits such a MTA, but I don't know it.
sendmail may be invoked from the command line by any user. In fact,
you can use it in place of
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 05:01:16PM +0200, Dumas Patrice ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think there is an argument in favor of including rough support of
> MTA in mutt, which is that MTA handling should be a system
> administrator (root) task and not a user's task. It is especially
> true
Hi,
I think there is an argument in favor of including rough support of MTA in
mutt, which is that MTA handling should be a system administrator (root) task
and not a user's task. It is especially true with MTA which listens on the
SMTP port.
When users haven't root privileges, it isn't possibl
On Wed, May 16, 2001, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> > You're going to add an MTA first (reimplement sendmail). Then
>
> Huh? Adding a few dozen lines of code to deliver via SMTP is
> "reimplementing sendmail"? You need a serious reality check.
"a few dozen lines of code"... Did you ever write
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:40:33PM +0200, Andre Majorel wrote:
> Then you would better serve your agenda by contributing to that
> project than by lobbying for Mutt to bend in that direction. If
> you want to work on an SMTP-aware MUA, more power to you. But
> don't make Mutt users pay for somethi
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:45:51AM +0200, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> Seriously, installing, configuring, running, administering a simple MTA
> like ssmtp may be not much to ask but it's still another piece of
> software to deal with, concepts to master, docs to read, precious time
> people do
On 2001-05-16 11:45 +0200, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> Purists and
> Cassandras that cry out each time a user asks for SMTP delivery in mutt
> are out of touch.
No they're not. They're very much in touch with what they need
and want.
> Mutt should be accessible out of the box. It should wor
31 matches
Mail list logo
