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.
> > 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?
Read that sentence again. Did I say it wasn't an MTA? No. What did I
say? I don't think it is that hard. I said it is an MDA, that it fills that
role.
If you actually pulled your head out of your butt long enough to read the
documentation of Exim you would find that a separate MDA is /not/ needed with
Exim because, this may sound like deja vu, it fills the role of an MDA.
Put it another way it provides filters (in the .forward file) for people
to dictate how they want their mail delivered in a similar manner to procmail.
It doesn't need procmail. It doesn't need any separate MDA.
IE, it is an MTA and an MDA which is entirely consistant with what I said
above and what I have stated in the past.
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.
> 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.
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.
> '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.
Furthermore, I never said based on the From: line, that is the
personalities paradigm which is flawed. Based on which mail account you're
in.
To use your logic why would I want my work mail to touch my SMTP server
when my client is perfectly capable of connecting the work server and sending
mail through it. Or, more to the point, the reverse. Why should I put
personal mail through the work server when my client can contact my home
server and have the mail go out from there.
Ah, that brings up something you didn't think about, did it? Pushing home
mail through work creates legal problems, doesn't it? Yes, it does, as some
businesses have problems with non-work related mail travelling through their
servers. Esp. at my work where there are corporate and public servers to
choose from. I have to have control, at the mail account level, as described
above, which SMTP server to it for a variety of legal and security reasons.
Yes, your machine is technically capable of handling the mail but is it
legally proper or the proper choice for security? It may be, for you. It
often is not for me which is why stuffing all mail under a single mail account
and splitting out on personalities (Eudora/Lookout! term and basically what
mutt does) is not an option. Having separate local accounts for remote
mailboxes is also absurd since that /should/ be handled internally to the
client. IE, why should I create 10 local accounts and have to log in 10 times
when it absolutely is not needed?
> > Oh jeez. C'mon, Brian. You've said you've been following me on this
> > issue for three years and you are now stating that I have not once in that
> > time ever described what was needed and why the current system fails? Get
> > real! I have drawn charts showing problems, I have described it in
> > detail, and if you looked at the bloody picture you'd understand what I
> > was getting at because it is evident in that picture! Stop being
> > willfully ignorant!
> You haven't. We went around in circles on lusenet before about this.
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.
> You use LOADED terms like "account", instead of "remote pop3 mailbox" and
> refuse to change. Sorry, I don't have a "mail account" on any pop3
> server. Some have shells with no email, some have mail with no shells.
Which is why I often say MAIL account.
> 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.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
