On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 07:12:37PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > NO, > > POP and IMAP (I think) will lose all the envelope information,
There are ugly methods of puting these into extended header. I don't like it. > UUCP keeps that.. > > SMTP is a PUSH operation.. Not neccesarily - there are poll type operations, which are beleaved to be dangerous, because you never know who you realy sending the mails. But with todays SMTP AUTH and SSL Authentication it may be trustfull again. > so for a PULL operation that can handle envelope information (e.g. BCC) > you need UUCP That's the reason why I'm currently using UUCP. > On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > > > > > On 01-Oct-2001 Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > > > UUCP still gets used. It's one of the few sane ways to handle email in > > > a laptop environment when you're always connecting through different > > > dialups/ISPs. It has mostly fallen out of favour due to ignorance and > > > FUD. Which is a shame, as it can still be a useful tool in certain > > > situations. > > > > I think a more 'modern' solution is POP or IMAP over SSH, you can also feed > > SMTP over an SSH tunnel too (This is what I use). Over SSH is possible. But UUCP is also independend from an IP connection and can run on nearly every bidirectional communication channel - even loosy. And UUCP restarts a dropped transmission exactly where it stopped and doesn't try to retransmit the complete message. There are still uses for UUCP. E.g. I'm doing printing over UUCP from my notebook. -- B.Walter COSMO-Project http://www.cosmo-project.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] Usergroup [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
