On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 02:01:15PM -0800, Adam Shand wrote: > > This is certainly wrong. My UUCP configuration files, all together, make > > less lines than my sendmail or PPP configuration.
But you need a MTA additionally - I am using postfix, bsmtp and uucp together and that setup is more complicated than just fetchmail + smail. > i have watched many new comers to the net struggle with uucp, both first > hand and being on the other end of a phone as tech support for them. it > hasn't been easy for any of them. under unix/dos/windows/mac uucp is UUCP isnt complicated. It is completely straigforward and the correct solution to multiple-user offline email, which ETRN is NOT an solution. > complicated because it's designed to be so much more then just an offline > mail protocol. *Aehm* UUCP is not a MAIL protocol. It is a file copy protocol which is extended with some kind of "Take this file x with protocol y and after receiving to z" ... > * it is difficult for a new comer to find a uucp provider This is the biggest problem. I am myself an ISP and I do UUCP for my Customers. But many with the Windows boxes dont even now anything else than POP-3 and/or SMTP. > * methods for retrieving mail are not laptop specific and should not be > included in the meta package. But offline mail is laptop specific. You have 2 choices. Fetchmail compatible pop-3 fetching and uucp. > > If you have several users on your laptop (and we are talking about Unix > > here), fetchmail is not really convenient: you'll need several accounts > > on the ISP and you'll need to put the passwords for all of them in > > fetchmail's configuration. > > or to have all domain mail routed to one pop account at your isp (most isps > support this) and have fetchmail pick up all the mail and redistribute it > locally. regardless though this is an unusual configuration for a laptop. This is NOT a solution. The splitting of the one POP-3 account into multiple unix accounts is NOT standardized and mostly not working as the normal mail envelope gets lost (There are workarounds available). > you miss the point, lets say pine or mutt then. both support the pop3 > protocol but are not laptop specific. Yes - But nobody suggested putting pine or mutt into the laptop package. > my vote is that the laptop meta package have the bare minimum needed to help > a user get laptop hardware to work, and to help them get tasks that are > much more likely to be needed on a laptop (roaming, vpn, disconnected file > systems) etc etc. But the "normal" laptop user wont to "disconnected file system" things, the mail case is much more common. Flo -- Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-5241-470566 ... The failure can be random; however, when it does occur, it is catastrophic and is repeatable ... Cisco Field Notice
