[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:

> > As upstream already said, see README.ME+; I find it quite clear in
> > PL99c.
> And like I said, it wasn't clear to me. Not in the version I was commenting
> on.

Okay, I've read the PL95 version and it is clear to me.  Please be
more particular.

> > I simply don't see any way to determine whether it supports IMAP.
> It's called "timeout". Elm could have timeout value that would move it onto
> the next service. If I remember correctly, Elm tries IMAP, and if it gets
> "Connection refused" (I don't know if it actually gets _that_, but it
> receives at least something similar, I believe), _then_ tries POP3. Since it
> doesn't from "firewalled" server, it doesn't try POP3.

Oh, really?  You're going to wait 15-30 seconds each time you connect?

> > > 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.
> Since I didn't understand it (and, as I believe, I had also other problems,
> like Yes/No, I don't remember now), I didn't try further. The version I
> still use looked good enough.

So you agree that it's upstream call?

> I promise I will try this 2.4pl25ME+99c-2 before sending anything to
> bugs.debian.org (regarding Elm, of course :-) ).

Please do.



Reply to: