> > > I guess I will try this new version once it hits the archives (in i386)
> > > and play with mail.services if I find some documentation to/for(?) that.
> > Didn't upstream explain it? Just write
> > pop3.SoftHome.Net pop
> > to ~/.elm/mail.services. This works on PL95 as well.
> Well, is this explained somewhere (in the package, not bugs.debian.org)?
> FAQ, README, or somewhere like that? Is there an explanation, why is it pop
> and not pop3, for example? This type of documentation is what I had in mind.
As upstream already said, see README.ME+; I find it quite clear in
> I don't agree the server should be "marked" as broken if it is configured in
> such way.
I simply don't see any way to determine whether it supports IMAP.
> It could start with POP3 and then move onto IMAP, if POP3 is not responding.
But then people with blocked POP3 would complain, wouldn't they? IMAP
has more features and it makes sense to try it first.
> Or the input could include (without supporting text files) information
> that the server Elm is supposed to connect to is a POP3 server, that Elm is
> not supposed to even try IMAP. This is the wishlist I had in mind (I think
> :-) ).
You've said so in your original report; upstream read it and obviously
decided mail.services is enough.