[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#82908: http://people.debian.org/~vela/elm-me+/00-debian.diff

petr@hudec.name writes:

> > > 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.



Reply to: