Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: discussion: October 2001:
[aclug-L] Re: Virtual POP3 and IMAP server

[aclug-L] Re: Virtual POP3 and IMAP server

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: discussion@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aclug-L] Re: Virtual POP3 and IMAP server
From: Jonathan Hall <jonhall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 21:33:20 -0500
Reply-to: discussion@xxxxxxxxx

On Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 08:25:35PM -0500, Carl D Cravens wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Jonathan Hall wrote:
> > For my particular application (and I realize this is not the same as
> > everyone else's), that's not a concern, b/c nobody will have shells on my
> > mail server machine.
> Do keep in mind that without proper precautions, CGI scripts could write
> to that directory if your users can do CGI.

The only services I'll be running on the machine are SMTP, POP3, IMAP, SSH,
and possibly DNS.

> > Since when does an MTA handle mailing lists anyway?  I'd much rather use
> > majordomo or listar or some other 3rd party mailing list package than my
> > MTA... regardless of what MTA I use.  And even if my MTA does support that,
> > I wouldn't use it, I'd still use some other app.
> Well, if it's user-managed distribution lists, I think that function
> should be left to the user's mail client.  If it's a true mailing list
> server, it seems to me like I *wouldn't* want any Tom, Dick or Harry on my
> system setting up mailing lists without going through me.  I want control
> over my resource usage and mailing lists can use a lot of resources.

Good point.  I still think the mailing list manager should be an application
separate from the MTA, although it will of course need cooperation from the
MTA in most cases.

> > powerful" mean "power hungry"?  In reading some things by qmail's author,
> > I'm beginning to think so... I think he wants to "take over" all mail
> > aspects with a single program.  I'm not sure that's wise.
> That's not the traditional Unix paradigm of breaking tasks down into small
> parts.  Granted, your MTA and POP/IMAP servers have to agree on how to
> store/access mail boxes, but they can do that through well-written
> standards instead of making one program do it all.


> > My only comment here is... Jump out of the 1980s and stop using pine.  :P
> I read my mail through a telnet connection (through a proxy) a lot of the

I read my mail via telnet 100% of the time.  I don't even have an MUA
installed on ANY of my workstations.  But that's by choice, not by 'force'
of a proxy or other limitations.  I still hate Pine's incredibly poor use of
my system resources and its inabilities.  Mutt is my MUA of choice for those

> I also have a personal "requirement" of being able to read mail and news

Mutt does that, too. :-)

> through the same interface.  They're essentially the same function (they
> just get messages from different sources), and I think that I should be
> able to read both through essentially the same interface.  Pine's news
> reader is somewhat primative, but I've got a couple external scripts that

Pine's * is grossly primiative, IMHO :-)

> help me manage my filters and the like.  Pine also meets several other
> critera...  can use an external editor, can get sig files from a script,
> can customize sig sources and lots of other things on a
> per-folder/newsgroup basis.

Mutt does all that... originally I switched to mutt b/c I couldn't get pine
to use the external editor I wanted.  Perhaps I just didn't look hard
enough, or perhaps that feature has been since added.  But after using mutt
for just a few weeks, I came to the conclusion that I should have switched
long before.  (I can thank Steve Saner for suggesting mutt to me at that
time :-)

> Pine is not ideal... it lacks a lot of "nice to have" features.  But it
> has all of my "got to have" features that no other mail/news client does.

"no other?"  Every feature you've mentioned I *know* is in mutt.  I suspect
it's also in gnus... and I'm sure there are other text-based mail/news
readers that I'm not aware of that meet those criteria, too.

Mutt also has a number of features I don't (yet) use... such as easy
PGP/GnuPG integration, many types of filters, and completely configurable

Oh well... in the end, it's all a matter of personal preference.... But as
we all know... "MY preference is always the RIGHT preference..." :-)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  Jonathan Hall  *  jonhall@xxxxxxxxxxxx  *  PGP public key available
 Systems Admin, Future Internet Services; Goessel, KS * (620) 367-2487  *  PGP Key ID: FE 00 FD 51
                  -=  Running Debian GNU/Linux  =-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]