Hi,
* Steve Lamb wrote (2004-02-08 11:57):
>Thorsten Haude wrote:
>>* Steve Lamb wrote (2004-02-08 11:29):
>>>1: The person has access to install a decent MDA on said machine.
>>>2: The person has access at ALL to configure said MDA in the first place.
>
>>I assume that there is a MDA installed yes.
>
> Why? QMail, Sendmail, Exim and I believe Postfix all do not
>require an MDA.
Nor do they possbibly require /bin/sh.
>Furthermore only one, to my knowledge, does any filtering at all. Of
>course those are only the major 4 on unix.
Nor do they have to.
>Imagine retreiving mail w/POP from a Windows box for a moment.
I think that is the basic problem: I won't imagine such thing because
I don't have to. I'm sure Outlook is a better Exchange client than
Mutt, but this is
I don't talk about some weird über-heterogeneous system landscape
which could only be tackled by some über-integrating MUA. I assume
Unix, Debian Linux to be more precise. I don't have to deal with
Windows or any other sub-standard software people throw at me (yet).
>> That is not so far-fetched
>>as you seem to think. The MDAs I know can also be configured by the
>>user without access to global configuration file.
>
> Presuming the user has shell or FTP access to the machine.
Yes.
>>I don't understand the problem you pose. Of course I don't use an MDA
>>at work on the Windows box, where I have to use Outlook once in a
>>while. But we are not discussing Windows or any other static OS here,
>>we are discussing Debian.
>
> Ah-ah-ah, we're not discussing Debian, are we?
Well, I do. If other OS's can't tackle Unix (or similar) tool chains
that's one more reason to drop them.
Why would a sub-standard OS be a better reason than the sub-standard
MUA that's ususally brought up in Reply-To flamefests?
>>>3: Having internal filtering does not preclude using external filtering.
>
>>I assume no such thing, I just don't see the reason to use internal
>>filters if external filters do all I need.
>
> You're presuming they do all you need. I rather like having some mail
>show up in different colors to highlight their priority in my mind.
So do I, that's why I told Mutt to do it that way.
>Oh, let's not forget I also completely enjoy being able to mark them
>read as they pass through the filter.
Ok, I don't see the point of even showing unfiltered mails, but
whatever rocks your boat.
>>So Mutt is inflexible because you are *forced* to use a highly
>>flexible approach? That doesn't make sense to me.
>
> Mutt is inflexible because I am forced to use an approach which is
>unsuited to my needs and is incapable of handling it.
So Mutt is inflexible because it is not the best solution for any
living person on earth? Not even for my mother (who hardly knows how
to use the AOL mailer)?
Ok then.
>>Mutt is certainly not for everyone, but that is only because the setup
>>requires more work, not because you are restricted in any way.
>
> Really. Access 2 mail accounts using completely separate settings,
>keeping separate sent-archives, separate SMTP servers, separate inbound
>servers
All done here except for the separate SMTP servers and the separate
sent-archives (but I have those at work).
The SMTP thing is indeed tricky because Mutt assumes that the Unix
mail system works, which is not increasingly doubtful. It can be done
with at least Postfix and Masqmail though.
>keep the mail separate at all points from retrival through filtering
>and onto delivery into the local folders.
What's the point? Some legal obligation?
Thorsten
--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.
- James Madison
Attachment:
pgpNqzOyQCbw5.pgp
Description: PGP signature