Re (2): web-based gmail problems.
in [Linux Networking]
|
From: no.top.post on 26 Jul 2010 06:43 In article <d6cvh7-3ej2.ln1(a)atuin.os2.dhs.org>, John Thompson <john(a)stolat.os2.dhs.org> wrote: > On 2010-07-25, Indi <indi(a)gaurahari.16x108.merseine.nu> wrote: > --- snip --- > > Not sure what your friend is going on about, but having used gmail > > with mutt via IMAP for nearly two years now I've had no trouble at > > all... > Well if you read the *Subject: web-based gmail problems.* you'd know that *web-based* is not for mutt. > Since gmail supports access via POP3 and IMAP (both SSL encrypted) and > offers SMTP service (also encrypted) and all without any advertising, I > have to wonder why anybody would prefer the web interface at all. > Obviously, it's because *web-based* is what they push in your face initially. My notes on mutt tell that it's got 6 screens of 22lines > 100 key-combinations, arranged alphabetically!! - as if it were a dictionary- which IMO shows a badly conceived design. They just kept adding features, and looked around for unused key-combinations to allocate. I'd rather not <oh well you'll get used to it> again. I suppose pine can't handle it ? Is SSL encrypted independant of the mail-client? then perhaps my normal POP3 mail-client could handle it, if I can see how to tell it to use SSL encrypted. == TIA.
From: Indi on 26 Jul 2010 11:43 On 2010-07-26, no.top.post(a)gmail.com <no.top.post(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In article <d6cvh7-3ej2.ln1(a)atuin.os2.dhs.org>, John Thompson <john(a)stolat.os2.dhs.org> wrote: > >> On 2010-07-25, Indi <indi(a)gaurahari.16x108.merseine.nu> wrote: >> --- snip --- >> > Not sure what your friend is going on about, but having used gmail >> > with mutt via IMAP for nearly two years now I've had no trouble at >> > all... >> > Well if you read the *Subject: web-based gmail problems.* > you'd know that *web-based* is not for mutt. > This being comp.mail.mutt I wasn't sure what the heck it was about. Why would anyone post questions about gmail's web interface to comp.mail.mutt? >> Since gmail supports access via POP3 and IMAP (both SSL encrypted) and >> offers SMTP service (also encrypted) and all without any advertising, I >> have to wonder why anybody would prefer the web interface at all. >> > Obviously, it's because *web-based* is what they push in your face > initially. > My notes on mutt tell that it's got > 6 screens of 22lines > 100 key-combinations, > arranged alphabetically!! - as if it were a dictionary- > which IMO shows a badly conceived design. > LOL, you must really get bent out of shape when faced with vi! > then perhaps my normal POP3 mail-client could handle it, > if I can see how to tell it to use SSL encrypted. > Or use fetchmail or getmail, they both wirk fine with gmail. -- Caveat utilitor, indi
From: spooky130u on 28 Jul 2010 15:21 In article <i2jote$puk$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, <no.top.post(a)gmail.com> wrote: >In article <d6cvh7-3ej2.ln1(a)atuin.os2.dhs.org>, John Thompson ><john(a)stolat.os2.dhs.org> wrote: >> > Not sure what your friend is going on about, but having used gmail >> > with mutt via IMAP for nearly two years now I've had no trouble at >> > all... >> >Well if you read the *Subject: web-based gmail problems.* >you'd know that *web-based* is not for mutt. And yet, here we are in comp.mail.mutt. The fact that we're reading this here in comp.mail.mutt does imply that Mutt fits in with this somehow.... How, I don't know, perhaps I missed something somewhere.... But it IS posted in comp.mail.mutt, so there must be a reason for that. >> Since gmail supports access via POP3 and IMAP (both SSL encrypted) and >> offers SMTP service (also encrypted) and all without any advertising, I >> have to wonder why anybody would prefer the web interface at all. I'll second that. I use Gmail because Cox's e-mail service kept dropping incoming e-mails (NOT spam) into /dev/null with no record of what happened to it and no useful help from Cox's "support" lusers (if it's not in their script, they're clueless) to get it fixed. But from day one, I've used POP3 (fetchmail), which then uses procmail as the MDA. Based on what I've seen, the web-based interface lacks procmail support. That alone, IMHO, makes it totally useless. It also fails to allow me to use the editor of my choice (unless I use a lot of cut/paste)...yet another total failure for the web interface. Again, IMHO. >My notes on mutt tell that it's got > 6 screens of 22lines > 100 key-combinations, > which IMO shows a badly conceived design. And those key bindings can be modified in ~/.muttrc, too. So what's your point? Can you do that with the web interface? >Is SSL encrypted independant of the mail-client? Yes. Handling SSL for *TRANSPORT* (key word there) is the responsibility of the MTA (Mail Transport Agent), not the MUA (Mail User Agent). >then perhaps my normal POP3 mail-client could handle it, Mine can. >if I can see how to tell it to use SSL encrypted. RTFM. It should be there. If not, it's time to get a better POP3 program. Later, --jim -- 73 DE N5IAL (/4) | Peter da Silva: No, try "rm -rf /" spooky130u(a)NOSPAM.gmail.com | Dave Aronson: As your life flashes < Running FreeBSD 7.0 > | before your eyes, in the unit of ICBM / Hurricane: | time known as an ohnosecond.... 30.39735N 86.60439W | (alt.sysadmin.recovery)
|
Pages: 1 Prev: web-based gmail problems. Next: No internet from SuSE 11.3 |