Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:04:31AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 12:34:17AM -0700, brian moore wrote:
> > And I fail to see how a single fetchmail process reading from n servers,
> > with m mailboxes on each, and delivering each remote mailbox to some
> > number greater than m boxes on your machine is anything but what you
> > asked for.
>
> I fail to see that happening in any manner I found acceptable. You keep
> forgetting the MUA aspect where there is no concept of separate accounts.
Huh?
You're the one that keeps bringing up 'accounts'. I keep asking what the
concept of an 'account' has to do with mailboxes.
Again, Steve, I have accounts on machines with no mailboxes. I have
mailboxes on machines with no accounts. I have MULTIPLE mailboxes on
machines with a single account.
You do NOT read from a pop3 'account', you read from a pop3 MAILBOX.
> > > Exim /IS/ an MDA. It doesn't come with an MDA, it fills that role.
>
> > No. Exim is an MTA.
>
> *sigh* Are you really that stupid, Brian? I mean, really?
Hell, I'm smart enough to a) spot private replies and reply to them
privately. *Hint* my last mail to you was private.
And b) I'm smart enough to only send each mail once, instead of mailing
it once as a private reply and then sending the exact same thing to a
list.
Heck, I'm even smart enough to NOT cc people on list mail unless they've
requested it.
Howzabout you Steve?
> If you wish to refute this claim, please provide your reasonings. I'm
> eager to understand why you think it doesn't fill the MDA role.
Filtering has NOTHING to do with "is this an MTA".
I have body filters in sendmail. I may play with them in postfix....
Does that make sendmail an MDA? Or postfix? No.
Both DO come with MDA's though (mail.local or just plain local,
respectively).
So what makes an MDA an MDA? Hint.... it's the D.
Part of the reason none of what you're saying makes sense is because you
insist on redefining terms to suit your own ends.
What seperates 'cat' from an MDA? cat doesn't know about dotlocks or
flock() or any of the other tricks expected of an MDA. That's it.
> > Again. the terms are loaded. I have -no- accounts. (Accounts are for,
> > well, accounting, and I don't pay for them.) I have an infinite number
> > of email addresses, of which maybe a dozen or two I use regularly.
>
> Don't play ignorant with me. This is getting tiring. Fine, if accounts
> are for accounting and you pay for all accounts then why do you have a root
> accounts on your box? And a nobody account. Oh, I guess that means you /ARE/
> familiar with the term accounts separate of the billing processes of a
> business.
And seperate from the concept of mailboxes. Why does root not have a
mailbox? Nor nobody?
In fact, of course, the reason for a seperate root account IS for
accounting. Go look up words like 'accountability'.
> Fine. A mail account, to me, is a separate set of folders, filters, and
> settings indpenedant of any other mail account. In fact, I have stated that
> several times. I fail to see how it is a loaded term when I have explained it
> numerous times.
Because 'settings' is a client issue.
Filters can be applied at many stages (some long before the MDA even gets
a chance to see it). Heck, my best filters are well out of the range of
any mail client unless it contains a web browser, since their
configuration is on a web page.
> > 'proper'? Um, why is my SMTP server not proper? Should I change smtp
> > servers based on 'From:'? Goodness, that would be silly -- why on earth
> > would I want to, when this machine is quite capable of handling mail
> > itself.
>
> Because the assumption is that your machine can handle mail at all. It
> should not be a requirement to set up a local SMTP server to handle mail on a
> workstation. The MTA would be using a smart host setup. IE, blidnly
> forwarding all mail to another SMTP server. Well, why not have the client
> send to that server. That /is/ why it is client/server and why most clients
> can connect to multiple servers.
Because this 'workstation' also happens to be a server? Why forward it
to another machine?
(Of course, I -could- if I wanted to, but that would be silly.)
> Uhm, I /have/. I distictly remember posting to usenet ASCII graphs of the
> differences to COLM. Problem is Deja is no longer keeping comprehensive
> archives and it is no longer there.
[*]
Score: -9999
%Expires:
Message-ID: .*morpheus@teleute\.dyn\.ml\.org>
%Score created by slrn on Wed Jul 15 10:39:39 1998
An honored spot.
> > I highly doubt that everyone is as stupid as you think they are.
>
> Given that you're claiming to have followed my discussions on this topic
> across different venues and say that I haven't done what I know I have I'm
> more likely to believe people are stupid than you might think. Esp. when
> people come in at the middle and propose something I have shot down five times
> already, explaining why, in detail, each time.
Yes, I should remember the words of WSB: "Never proffer sympathy to the
mentally ill, for theirs is a bottomless pit." (From "Words of Advice to
Young People").
ciao, Stevey.
--
Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor.
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting
Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day.
Netscum, Bane of Elves.
Reply to: