On 09Jun2019 21:13, Frank Watt wrote:
I'll look into getmail which might avoid all the roadblocks so far
encountered. Thanks for the suggestions.
I use getmail. I get it to deliver to a spool Maildir, and monitor that
for new mail, which is then filtered.
Cheers,
Cameron Simpson
On 9/06/19 6:36 AM, Kurt Hackenberg wrote:
On 2019-06-07 05:08, Frank Watt wrote:
| However, fetchmail has a -m option, which can probably deliver directly
| to procmail, bypassing the local mail system entirely.
Looks like that's not as simple as I'd hoped.
I'm sort of jumping in blind her
On 2019-06-07 05:08, Frank Watt wrote:
| However, fetchmail has a -m option, which can probably deliver directly
| to procmail, bypassing the local mail system entirely.
Looks like that's not as simple as I'd hoped.
I'm sort of jumping in blind here -- don't know exactly what you're
trying to
On 08Jun2019 02:42, Kurt Hackenberg wrote:
On 2019-06-08 00:41, Cameron Simpson wrote:
Well, the From_ isn't just a delimiter for mbox lines, it also
historically contains the envelope address from the mail system - the
address used for this delivery (versus whatever may be in the
headers).
On 2019-06-08 00:41, Cameron Simpson wrote:
Well, the From_ isn't just a delimiter for mbox lines, it also
historically contains the envelope address from the mail system - the
address used for this delivery (versus whatever may be in the headers).
It's the envelope sender address, who SMTP
On 07Jun2019 23:22, Kurt Hackenberg wrote:
On 2019-06-07 07:22, Cameron Simpson wrote:
If fetchmail's delivering to a programme, nothing prevents that being
an arbitrary script to premangle a leading From_ line. Hmm. I've got
a script in my bin directory called "unfrom_" for exactly this
pur
On 2019-06-07 07:22, Cameron Simpson wrote:
Are you looking in mbox files or in other places. [...] Hmm, my maildir
message files also have From_ lines.
If fetchmail's delivering to a programme, nothing prevents that being an
arbitrary script to premangle a leading From_ line. Hmm. I've got a
On 2019-06-07 05:08, Frank Watt wrote:
When I look at the headers of most mail, I see an mbox-style From
line. Where do we make use of the 'reformat -f0' and "Return-Path"
advice?
In the stream of data that ends up on the standard input of the delivery
agent (procmail, maildrop, whatever).
* Cameron Simpson [06-07-19 19:43]:
> On 07Jun2019 07:37, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> > * Cameron Simpson [06-07-19 07:24]:
> > > It does look that way. I left procmail because I disliked its rule
> > > syntax,
> > > its totally regexp based matching system (ok for subject lines, ghastly
> > > fo
On 07Jun2019 07:37, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Cameron Simpson [06-07-19 07:24]:
It does look that way. I left procmail because I disliked its rule
syntax,
its totally regexp based matching system (ok for subject lines, ghastly for
email addresses) and the performance cost incurred by it rerea
* Patrick Shanahan [06-07-19 07:38]:
> * Cameron Simpson [06-07-19 07:24]:
> [...]
> > How's fetchmail run by your system? Cron? Something else?
>
> not that fetchmail has a daemon, "fetchmail -d 150" runs every 150
> seconds.
s/not/note
--
(paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana,
* Cameron Simpson [06-07-19 07:24]:
[...]
> How's fetchmail run by your system? Cron? Something else?
not that fetchmail has a daemon, "fetchmail -d 150" runs every 150
seconds.
[...]
> It does look that way. I left procmail because I disliked its rule syntax,
> its totally regexp based match
On 07Jun2019 21:08, Frank Watt wrote:
First of all, apologies for munging the thread: Gmail didn't deliver
Cameron's response. I had to get the text from the archives.
That seems to happen to me quite a bit. I harbour some suspicions to do
with years of maintaining the adzapper project (whic
First of all, apologies for munging the thread: Gmail didn't deliver
Cameron's response. I had to get the text from the archives.
Cameron Simpson wrote:
[...]
| Procmail generally relies on being installed in the user's ~/.forward
| file to cause sendmail (the mail system) to deliver email
On 06.06.19 18:59, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> But nullmailer really sounds very promising - it has a queue and delivers to
> a smarthost, which is all most people really need on their personal
> machines.
That's about the size of it. But if a traditional mail set-up is valued,
it's only one config c
On 06.06.19 20:47, Frank Watt wrote:
> I thought fetchmail had nothing to do with sendmail, but that evidently
> isn't the case. I installed nullmailer and fetchmail ceased to work.
» DESCRIPTION
fetchmail is a mail-retrieval and forwarding utility; it fetches
mail from remote mailserver
On 06Jun2019 20:47, Frank Watt wrote:
On 5/06/19 10:37 PM, Nathan Stratton Treadway wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 21:30:51 +1200, Frank Watt wrote:
Would that really work? It's an attractive idea, avoiding the
complications of compiling new code with ancient functionality and
getting rid of
Thanks, Nathan,
On 5/06/19 10:37 PM, Nathan Stratton Treadway wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 21:30:51 +1200, Frank Watt wrote:
[...]
Would that really work? It's an attractive idea, avoiding the
complications of compiling new code with ancient functionality and
getting rid of sendmail's id
On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 21:30:51 +1200, Frank Watt wrote:
> I wasn't clear. I'm quite content with an old mutt, but I've come to
> the end of the line with sendmail (which I can't get to work, though
> it used to work).
Ah! In that case, definitely don't try recompiling anything :)
> What I'm
On 05Jun2019 19:56, Erik Christiansen wrote:
On 05.06.19 21:30, Frank Watt wrote:
I wasn't clear. I'm quite content with an old mutt, but I've come to
the end of the line with sendmail (which I can't get to work, though
it used to work).
I'm impressed. When I finally switched to postfix arou
On 05.06.19 21:30, Frank Watt wrote:
> I wasn't clear. I'm quite content with an old mutt, but I've come to
> the end of the line with sendmail (which I can't get to work, though
> it used to work).
I'm impressed. When I finally switched to postfix around 15 years ago, I
thought I might be one of
Christian Brabant wrote:
| On Di, 04 Jun 2019, Frank Watt wrote:
|
[.]
|
| > Were I to install nullmailer, it would remove sendmail, but is
| > that any use with a 9 year old mutt? I find everything I need in
| > it. Would it work to reinstall the old mutt deb after replacing
| > sendma
On Di, 04 Jun 2019, Frank Watt wrote:
>
>
> On 4/06/19 1:24 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > Frank Watt wrote:
> > >
> > > |You seem to be on x86_64 (or amd64 as debian calls it), so unless
> > > |you are building as 32-bit you don't need any of these.
> > > |
> > > |The -dev versions include header
On 4/06/19 1:24 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:
Frank Watt wrote:
|You seem to be on x86_64 (or amd64 as debian calls it), so unless
|you are building as 32-bit you don't need any of these.
|
|The -dev versions include headers, so you need those to compile, the
|more-basic versions are only the librar
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 06:50:15 -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 12:24:33PM +1200, Frank Watt wrote:
> >configure: error: no curses library found
>
> I think Ken and Cameron covered the bases. However, on Debian based
> systems another good thing to run is
> apt-get b
On Sun, Jun 02, 2019 at 21:51:25 +1200, Frank Watt wrote:
> On 2/06/19 9:07 PM, Jens John wrote:> On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, at 05:36,
> > (Why not just upgrade your Debian or Ubuntu release?)
>
> There's nothing newer I can find:
> https://sources.debian.org/patches/mutt/1.5.23-3/
>
A better search fo
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 12:24:33PM +1200, Frank Watt wrote:
configure: error: no curses library found
I think Ken and Cameron covered the bases. However, on Debian based
systems another good thing to run is
apt-get build-dep mutt
It's not foolproof because of the version disparity and poss
On 03Jun2019 21:04, Frank Watt wrote:
Despite the confusing name,
aptitude install lib64ncurses5-dev:i386
got past the curses error message. But then I got this:
checking tcbdb.h usability... no
checking tcbdb.h presence... no
checking for tcbdb.h... no
checking villa.h usability... no
checki
Ken Moffat wrote:
|Hi Frank,
|
| I assume you probably won't get this mail (gmail dislikes my mails
|from this address), but just in case ...
|
At least it got to the archives.
|[...]
|> p lib32ncurses5 - shared libraries for
|> terminal handling (32-bit)
|>
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 12:24:33PM +1200, Frank Watt wrote:
>
> I had to leave out gpgme, but I had a problem with
>
> configure: error: no curses library found
>
Hi Frank,
I assume you probably won't get this mail (gmail dislikes my mails
from this address), but just in case ...
> There are
On 3/06/19 2:00 AM, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
[...]
Lastly, the latest mutt releases have started to bump up system
requirements:
* If your gpgme library is too old and you don't use gpgme,
you can just leave '--enable-gpgme' out.
* If your OpenSSL version is too old, you could try '
On Sun, Jun 02, 2019 at 09:51:25PM +1200, Frank Watt wrote:
On 2/06/19 9:07 PM, Jens John wrote:> On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, at 05:36,
Frank Watt wrote:
[1]
https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/mutt#n21
That's just the sort of information I was seeking. Tha
On 2/06/19 9:07 PM, Jens John wrote:> On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, at 05:36,
Frank Watt wrote:
>> Am I to assume that I would have had sendmail in my environment at the
>> time the deb was installed? So I'd need to remove it so that I can
>> compile mutt with built-in SMTP. What else would I need to
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, at 05:36, Frank Watt wrote:
> Am I to assume that I would have had sendmail in my environment at the
> time the deb was installed? So I'd need to remove it so that I can
> compile mutt with built-in SMTP. What else would I need to bear in
> mind?
>
> I'm a bit apprehensive ab
34 matches
Mail list logo
