On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 01:11:53PM -0500, X Tec wrote: > On 2022-08-31 11:46:15, X Tec wrote: >> On 2022-08-30 18:34:42, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 03:14:21PM -0500, X Tec wrote: >>>> Fetching email with 'G' key just ignores the "pop_last=yes" >>>> setting because it always downloads all email regardless of >>>> locally read or not, even though other clients such as Outlook or >>>> Thunderbird don't do this mistake. So I don't think server doesn't >>>> support the LAST command... >>> >>> Run with debugging enabled (-d 2) and check the log file to see >>> what the LAST command response is from the server. Since the >>> command was deprecated some time ago, I would venture the server is >>> returning an unknown command error. >> >> With debugger I saw this line: "-ERR Unknown command: LAST"; so I >> think you were right once again...
OK, so that's that mystery resolved. >>> Mutt's POP3 support *is* simple, so if LAST isn't supported, the >>> behavior you are seeing with <fetch-mail> is expected. >>> >>> You may be happier just directly connecting to a pops:// URL via >>> one of your mailboxes instead; or with a more sophisticated tool, >>> such as Getmail (which Sam mentioned). >> >> So if I wanted this function, or the one of "keep messages in server >> for x days", would I need another external POP3 mail fetcher? Yes. There is one caveat. If the POP3 server is totally kooky, then even Getmail or suchlike might be unable to extract the desired behaviour from it. Fortunately, nothing so far seems particularly kooky about the POP3 server in your case. >> I did read in the Mutt wiki that Mutt originally didn't intend to >> have native SMTP support, but it ended up (reluctantly?) being added >> eventually; which is why I decided to learn Msmtp as well. However, I >> was unable to find any proof of this being the same case for IMAP and >> POP3, and I searched the whole wiki and docs. So I thought "so unlike >> SMTP, Mutt has always been supposed to support IMAP and POP3 >> natively". >> >> But then, must I understand that this is *not* the case for POP3? > > Could someone still help with these issues please? Mutt *does* support POP3, but as Kevin pointed out above, its POP3 support is simple, i.e. basic. If you want a more sophisticated MRA (i.e. POP3 client), then a third-party MRA such as Getmail will likely suit you better. Mutt roughly adheres to the Unix philosophy - "Make each program do one thing well." Mutt is an *amazing* MUA. It does not excel at anything else. (Nor should it.) Yes, Mutt has MRA and MTA capabilities, but these are limited. It is *good* that these capabilities are limited because that keeps the codebase, and the consequent bug surface and attack surface, small. (Purists might argue that Mutt should not have MRA or MTA capabilities at *all* - but for better or worse, the pragmatists who argued Mutt should have limited MRA and MTA capabilities got their way.) So, if you want an *amazing* lightweight MTA to sit alongside Mutt, msmtp is a great choice - and it seems you made that choice. Ace! Similarly, if you want an *amazing* lightweight MRA to sit alongside Mutt, Getmail is a great choice. Good luck, Sam -- A: When it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: When is top-posting a bad thing? () ASCII ribbon campaign. Please avoid HTML emails & proprietary /\ file formats. (Why? See e.g. https://v.gd/jrmGbS ). Thank you.
