[9fans] upas : without acme : possible?
hello, is it possible to use "upas" without relying on acme? it might be uncomfortable (relatively speaking), but is it possible? ~mayuresh
Re: [9fans] upas : without acme : possible?
Hi, Sure, no problem. Upas exports a filesystem, you can read it :-) Although I use plan9port version of upas with acme and my client 'amail', sometimes I use 9p to read, for example, a raw message body to send it to spam analitics. But reading messages is uncomfortable, it is true. On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 4:47 PM Mayuresh Kathe wrote: > hello, > > is it possible to use "upas" without relying on acme? > it might be uncomfortable (relatively speaking), but is it possible? > > ~mayuresh > > > -- Best regards, Alexander
Re: [9fans] upas : without acme : possible?
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 8:45 AM Mayuresh Kathe wrote: > hello, > > is it possible to use "upas" without relying on acme? > it might be uncomfortable (relatively speaking), but is it possible? > Yes. This is quite reasonable. To a first order approximation, `upas` is a mail transfer agent, for moving mail around across a network (or just into a mailbox on a local system) while Acme provides a mail client (a "mail user agent") based on a filesystem. There used to be, and probably still is, another mail client just called 'mail' that could be used to read and send mail, but that is also independent of upas. Hope that helps. - Dan C.
Re: [9fans] upas : without acme : possible?
On 2018-11-29 08:04 PM, Dan Cross wrote: On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 8:45 AM Mayuresh Kathe wrote: hello, is it possible to use "upas" without relying on acme? it might be uncomfortable (relatively speaking), but is it possible? Yes. This is quite reasonable. To a first order approximation, `upas` is a mail transfer agent, for moving mail around across a network (or just into a mailbox on a local system) while Acme provides a mail client (a "mail user agent") based on a filesystem. There used to be, and probably still is, another mail client just called 'mail' that could be used to read and send mail, but that is also independent of upas. is that "mail" you mention similar to "mailx" under unix-like systems? the problem is one of not wanting a captive user-interface to the mailing sub-system. i really hate moving out of the text console and away from the command-line. yes, i really don't mind having multiple consoles around instead of the unixy way of switching terminals using ctrl+fn keys. thanks, ~mayuresh
Re: [9fans] upas : without acme : possible?
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 08:27:09PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: > > is that "mail" you mention similar to "mailx" under unix-like systems? > the problem is one of not wanting a captive user-interface to the > mailing sub-system. > You're looking for nedmail(1), I think. Hopefully sl will chime in; he's got a pile of scripts revolving around this idea. khm
[9fans] acme under plan9port : made to work?
i apologise up-front for asking this on 9fans, but, how is acme and plumber and all it's utilities (including upas) made to work under non-plan9 systems via plan9port; on say something like linux or even mac os x? do they have some kind of user-level library which emulates 9p? ~mayuresh
Re: [9fans] acme under plan9port : made to work?
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:43 AM Mayuresh Kathe wrote: > i apologise up-front for asking this on 9fans, but, how is acme and > plumber and all it's utilities (including upas) made to work under > non-plan9 systems via plan9port; on say something like linux or even mac > os x? > > do they have some kind of user-level library which emulates 9p? > That's exactly right. - Dan C.
Re: [9fans] acme under plan9port : made to work?
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 11:44, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: > > i apologise up-front for asking this on 9fans, but, how is acme and > plumber and all it's utilities (including upas) made to work under > non-plan9 systems via plan9port; on say something like linux or even mac > os x? > > do they have some kind of user-level library which emulates 9p? > > ~mayuresh take a look plan9port/src/lib9p/ also take a look at libixp: http://repo.cat-v.org/libixp/
Re: [9fans] acme under plan9port : made to work?
It doesn't emulate 9P (protocol); it is in fact the Plan 9 implementation. The fan-in/fan-out of 9p connection is done by 9pserve (src/cmd/9pserve.c, partially emulating the Plan 9 mnt driver. Servers publish a 9p endpoint, and 9pserve is used to let multiple clients to establish 9p connections to that server. On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:02 AM Dan Cross wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:43 AM Mayuresh Kathe wrote: > >> i apologise up-front for asking this on 9fans, but, how is acme and >> plumber and all it's utilities (including upas) made to work under >> non-plan9 systems via plan9port; on say something like linux or even mac >> os x? >> >> do they have some kind of user-level library which emulates 9p? >> > > That's exactly right. > > - Dan C. > >
Re: [9fans] upas : without acme : possible?
you can send mail with the mail command, just like traditional mailers. reading mail: i use the same tool but envoked from faces(1) - right click on the face of the person who sent the mail to read the message. people tend to be very impressed with faces to this day. great interface. -Steve > On 29 Nov 2018, at 3:58 pm, Kurt H Maier wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 08:27:09PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: >> >> is that "mail" you mention similar to "mailx" under unix-like systems? >> the problem is one of not wanting a captive user-interface to the >> mailing sub-system. >> > > You're looking for nedmail(1), I think. Hopefully sl will chime in; > he's got a pile of scripts revolving around this idea. > > khm
Re: [9fans] upas : without acme : possible?
> is that "mail" you mention similar to "mailx" under unix-like systems? > the problem is one of not wanting a captive user-interface to the > mailing sub-system. On Plan 9, 'mail' is a shell script that invokes either nedmail(1) or marshal(1), depending on the flags it consumes. The nedmail program is nearly identical, from a user interface standpoint, to the mail command that shipped with the 8th edition of Research UNIX. It remains part of the same (though evolved) e-mail processing system, upas. Ned is a little different than mailx(1), but it's probably just about what you're looking for. Plan 9's mail system itself (upas) relies heavily upon upasfs(4), filter(1), and simple rc scripts, which make even complex tasks like custom spam filtering and automatic mailbox management trivial. sl
Re: [9fans] upas : without acme : possible?
On 2018-11-30 09:02 AM, s...@9front.org wrote: is that "mail" you mention similar to "mailx" under unix-like systems? the problem is one of not wanting a captive user-interface to the mailing sub-system. On Plan 9, 'mail' is a shell script that invokes either nedmail(1) or marshal(1), depending on the flags it consumes. The nedmail program is nearly identical, from a user interface standpoint, to the mail command that shipped with the 8th edition of Research UNIX. It remains part of the same (though evolved) e-mail processing system, upas. Ned is a little different than mailx(1), but it's probably just about what you're looking for. Plan 9's mail system itself (upas) relies heavily upon upasfs(4), filter(1), and simple rc scripts, which make even complex tasks like custom spam filtering and automatic mailbox management trivial. i was looking for a non-captive user-interface email client like "mh" by rand corporation. i guess i'll either have to learn to use acme with upas or write my own "mh" replacement for plan 9. ~mayuresh
Re: [9fans] upas : without acme : possible?
It's not clear why you think the interface provided by upasfs(4) is captive, or why you insist acme needs to be involved at all. I'm writing this message with nedmail/marshal, connected to Plan 9 in a plain SSH terminal session -> OpenBSD -> drawterm -G. No GUI or terminal frills or frippery is involved. sl
Re: [9fans] upas : without acme : possible?
On 2018-11-30 10:10 AM, s...@9front.org wrote: It's not clear why you think the interface provided by upasfs(4) is captive, or why you insist acme needs to be involved at all. I'm writing this message with nedmail/marshal, connected to Plan 9 in a plain SSH terminal session -> OpenBSD -> drawterm -G. No GUI or terminal frills or frippery is involved. wow, i'll definitely check out nedmail/marshal. btw, i don't think the interface provided by upasfs might be captive, it's the mail/mailx interface which is so damn painful (from a usage philosophy perspective). ~mayuresh
