Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
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) procmailrc.
I fail to see how you cannot understand that my position of having to
filter from a single source is a problem by pointing out... I can filter!
> You mean exim doesn't have an MDA? How does mail get into your mailbox?
> Or do you mean "exim comes with its own MDA".
> There is a HUGE difference.
Exim /IS/ an MDA. It doesn't come with an MDA, it fills that role.
> How insane? You do the math:
That doesn't tell me jack nor does it state how many accounts you have. I
have stated quite a but that the system, as proposed, is fine for a /single/
account but breaks down after that.
> Yes it does. Are you telling me that my mail configuration doesn't
> work? How the hell did I get this mail? Am I just talking to the wall?
> (I may as well, be, but that's a different matter.)
You have not solved simple issues like sending out the proper SMTP server,
for example. /YOUR/ configuration is, IMHO, substandard to mine. It requires
/LESS/.
> You have done no such thing. "Look at this picture!" is hardly a
> functional example. It's not even a bloody mockup. I'm -not- about to
> defile a system and pay for Windows to see what -you- want in a mail
> client.
Oh jeez. C'mon, Brian. You've said you've been following me on this
issue for three years and you are now stating that I have not once in that
time ever described what was needed and why the current system fails? Get
real! I have drawn charts showing problems, I have described it in detail,
and if you looked at the bloody picture you'd understand what I was getting at
because it is evident in that picture! Stop being willfully ignorant!
> Well, quite frankly, whiney sods saying "Write code my way or I will
> continue to use Windows for mail!" aren't likely to make me care. -You-
> have a very arrogant attitude, insisting that YOUR way is right and
> "fuck you if you don't agree with me!"
I have not insisted. I have explained the differences, why the proposed
system fails, what the current alternatives are, why certain parts do and do
not work. That is more than just insisting and being difficult.
> For many people, we have a multitude of mailboxes and addresses, yet we
> are able to make mail work just fine... even if you tell us we're
> imagining it.
Right, but you're doing it in a manner which can cause problems outside
the technical ones, down the line. As I said, I have written volumes on this
manner in many different forums going so far as to even make ASCII diagrams of
the data flow, offer example programs (Don't want to run Windows, borrow a
friend's system for 1/2 hour. Rumor has it that Windows is pretty easy to
find on people's machines), places to find the information and even after all
of that, when it is plain as day to most people that I talk to, you still want
/more/?
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Reply to: