Re: Recent spam increase
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 01:43:21PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2006-10-26 12:56:07 +0100, David Hart wrote:
> > I'll be the first to admit that mutt is not ideal for reading pop
> > accounts but I've found it very useful for things like testing when
> > setting up pop/imap servers.
>
> AFAIK, POP is not a protocol to read mail (in the sense, as a real
> mailbox, with search and editing possibilities), but just to fetch
> mail.
Yes, that's true and it's one reason mutt is not ideal for the purpose.
Mutt can be configured to pull mail from pop down into a local folder
for offline use but needs a little bit extra config with perhaps
folder-hooks or macros to use with more than one account. But, I think,
this goes against the way that mutt was designed to be used and it's not
the way I use it on a daily basis.
I posted the previous method because I happen to have similar lines
commented out in my ~/.muttrc as that is what I occasionally use for
testing purposes.
> > For the small amount of mail I receive currently via pop I use
> > fetchmail dumped into the local mailspool.
>
> But what if you use several machines, so that your local mailspool
> can't be read from another machine (assume that a local IMAP server
> won't solve the problem either, due to restrictions)? In this case,
> fetching the mail and storing it to a remote IMAP mailbox (with the
> IMAP protocol) may be the only solution...
I didn't explain that fully as it didn't seem relevant to the point I
was trying to make. I receive the vast majority of my mail directly
by SMTP to the machine which has my personal mail store. Do a 'dig
tonix.org mx' (my domain) and you'll get jynn.tonix.org as the first
mx which is the box I'm sitting at right now.
When I'm away from home I ssh into my home box to get mail. If that
became a problem (because, perhaps, of firewall rules), I'd probably
setup ssh to listen on port 80 as a first choice but, imap would
definitely be an option.
--
David Hart <debian@tonix.org>
Reply to: