On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 07:43:31AM +0200, Thomas Krennwallner wrote: > Hi! > > [Finally I must join this thread now.] > > On Sat Jul 19, 2003 at 01:05:32AM -0400, Bijan Soleymani wrote: > > This argument just doesn't make it. Mutt does filtering (shouldn't > > Where does mutt filter you messages? With what setting? > > > procmail be doing this). Mutt does IMAP and POP (shouldn't fetchmail > > ad IMAP: A MUA has to support IMAP or IMAP would be another POP. IMAP > mails belongs on the server side and not on the client. > > ad POP: Do you have a desktop and a notebook and only have POP available > on your ISP's server? How do you manage to have all mails at your > machine without messing with some scripts? The POP support makes sense > because you can treat a POP server just like a mailbox. Fetchmail does this perfectly. I have cron run it once a minute. > > built-in support of mutt. Sadly for me, I use external programs > > (fetchmail, procmail, spamassassin, and so on) for getting mail, but I > > would like mutt to handle just sending the mail. But for some reason > > only that part of the chain is taboo. > > Sending mail belongs to the MTA aka Mail Transfer Agent. Maybe in the 1980's. But today even the RFCs accept having MUAs sending mail through SMTP (look at other messages in thread). > File a wishlist bug report. > > > Pine comes with pico, but you can use vim instead. Mutt supports IMAP > > and POP but you can use external apps as well. Evolution can use SMTP > > smarthost or local MTA. In each of these cases the advanced user can > > choose to ignore the built-in functionality. > > And you could ignore to use mutt if you don't want to mess with a MTA. > BTW, ever tried to run eximconfig with option 2? You can setup a > smarthost using mailserver within 9.3 seconds (if you are fast ;-). But that means: a) I would have to give up using mutt, as opposed to MTA bigots, ignoring built-in SMTP. b) I do, but I don't want to rerun that each time I switch SMTP smarthosts. And having multiple smarthosts that way doesn't seem to be possible. > When everybody else likes the way X does its tasks why should upstream > or the package maintainer change the way X does its tasks? It makes > actually sense to split software in several parts or you will end up in > software that does everything (german speaking people would say > eierlegende Wollmilchsau) and nothing because the software developer has > to reinvent all type of software from scratch (or use some fine > libraries) and doesn't have time to hack some new features in. I don't claim to speak for everyone else. There's a question in the mutt FAQ that says, something like how do I use mutt to send messages through SMTP like Pine. And the answer is you can't that's wrong, you're a bad person :) ok so I exagerate a bit. Bijan
Attachment:
pgpksZ70qbtpx.pgp
Description: PGP signature