Menu
▾
▴
fetchmail-users
|
From: pongthep <pkr...@eg...> - 2005-10-01 19:41:47
|
> However, some ISPs require you to login with your email address as the > username, so you might try putting "user my...@is..." in your > fetchmailrc instead of "user myname". > > But this is all questions between you and your ISP. I've tried "user my...@is..." resulting in: fetchmail: 6.2.2 querying mail.isp.com (protocol POP3) at Sun Oct 2 00:32:28 2005: poll started fetchmail: POP3< +OK Hello there. fetchmail: POP3> CAPA fetchmail: POP3< +OK Here's what I can do: fetchmail: POP3< STLS fetchmail: POP3< TOP fetchmail: POP3< USER fetchmail: POP3< LOGIN-DELAY 10 fetchmail: POP3< PIPELINING fetchmail: POP3< UIDL fetchmail: POP3< IMPLEMENTATION Courier Mail Server fetchmail: POP3< . fetchmail: POP3> STLS fetchmail: POP3< +OK Begin SSL/TLS negotiation now. fetchmail: POP3> CAPA fetchmail: POP3> USER my...@is... fetchmail: POP3> PASS fetchmail: Unknown login or authentication error on my...@is...@mail.isp.com fetchmail: POP3> QUIT fetchmail: 6.2.2 querying mail.isp.com (protocol POP3) at Sun Oct 2 00:32:29 2005: poll completed fetchmail: Query status=15 fetchmail: normal termination, status 15 "my...@is...@mail.isp.com" does not make any sense. i'm sure that my config i.e. username and password are correct. perhaps i have to be away from fetchmail, telnet can do it also. anyway, thank you very much. |
|
From: pongthep <pkr...@eg...> - 2006-01-08 16:49:57
|
Sorry for dumping old thread. After failing with fetchmail 6.2.2 and retrieved mails with telnet for a while. Now I turn into FreeBSD5.4 with fetchmail 6.2.5 (old already). Same configuration, which did not work with fetchmail 6.2.2, works very nice with new fetchmail 6.2.5. So it seems my old fetchmail 6.2.2 was buggy or something wrong with that. Just for your information. thanks for all of your help :) pongthep * pongthep (pkr...@eg...) wrote: > > However, some ISPs require you to login with your email address as the > > username, so you might try putting "user my...@is..." in your > > fetchmailrc instead of "user myname". > > > > But this is all questions between you and your ISP. > > I've tried "user my...@is..." > resulting in: > > fetchmail: 6.2.2 querying mail.isp.com (protocol POP3) at Sun Oct 2 00:32:28 2005: poll started > fetchmail: POP3< +OK Hello there. > fetchmail: POP3> CAPA > fetchmail: POP3< +OK Here's what I can do: > fetchmail: POP3< STLS > fetchmail: POP3< TOP > fetchmail: POP3< USER > fetchmail: POP3< LOGIN-DELAY 10 > fetchmail: POP3< PIPELINING > fetchmail: POP3< UIDL > fetchmail: POP3< IMPLEMENTATION Courier Mail Server > fetchmail: POP3< . > fetchmail: POP3> STLS > fetchmail: POP3< +OK Begin SSL/TLS negotiation now. > fetchmail: POP3> CAPA > fetchmail: POP3> USER my...@is... > fetchmail: POP3> PASS > fetchmail: Unknown login or authentication error on my...@is...@mail.isp.com > fetchmail: POP3> QUIT > fetchmail: 6.2.2 querying mail.isp.com (protocol POP3) at Sun Oct 2 00:32:29 2005: poll completed > fetchmail: Query status=15 > fetchmail: normal termination, status 15 > > "my...@is...@mail.isp.com" does not make any sense. > i'm sure that my config i.e. username and password are correct. > perhaps i have to be away from fetchmail, telnet can do it also. > anyway, thank you very much. ----- End forwarded message ----- |
|
From: Rob M. <rob...@gm...> - 2006-01-08 17:38:24
|
On 08/01/06, pongthep <pkr...@eg...> wrote:
> Sorry for dumping old thread.
> After failing with fetchmail 6.2.2 and retrieved mails with telnet for a while.
> Now I turn into FreeBSD5.4 with fetchmail 6.2.5 (old already).
> Same configuration, which did not work with fetchmail 6.2.2, works very nice with new fetchmail 6.2.5.
I'd advise using fetchmail from ports - it's always worked fine for
me. Then you can easily script checking for new versions and pulling
the distfiles down ready for you to compile them.
That and upgrading to 6.3.1 to avoid all those nasty security problems :-)
--
Please keep list traffic on the list.
Rob MacGregor
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he
doesn't become a monster. Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
From: Matthias A. <mat...@gm...> - 2006-01-08 19:29:18
|
BTW, can the list filters please be adjusted so as to ban + reject "fetchmail-users digest" in subjects? I'm not looking at messages with these headers anyways, because they are meaningless. People with incapable mailers deserve to suffer more than those with capable mailers, and they can always switch to the plain version, or split the digest up with maildrop or procmail helper programs. One example for a capable mailer is Gnus, press Ctrl+D on the digest and see individual messages you can reply to, with proper headers. Thanks, -- Matthias Andree |
|
From: Rob F. <rf...@fu...> - 2006-01-08 21:26:35
|
Matthias Andree wrote: > BTW, can the list filters please be adjusted so as to ban + reject > "fetchmail-users digest" in subjects? You do realize that under such a policy, your message (and this reply) would be rejected.... :-) > I'm not looking at messages with these headers anyways, because they are > meaningless. Ah, but others here are. I don't see any need for any one person to look at all the threads. > People with incapable mailers deserve to suffer more than > those with capable mailers, and they can always switch to the plain > version, or split the digest up with maildrop or procmail helper > programs. On the -users list I don't see much reason for being too strict or telling people they're using the wrong MUA. (This isn't linux-elitists, after all.) I could see an argument for it on -devel, but it hasn't been an issue there. I'm more interested in getting people to actually subscribe to the list before getting into conversations on it. -- ==============================| "A microscope locked in on one point Rob Funk <rf...@fu...> |Never sees what kind of room that it's in" http://www.funknet.net/rfunk | -- Chris Mars, "Stuck in Rewind" |
|
From: Matthias A. <mat...@gm...> - 2006-01-08 22:13:20
|
Rob Funk <rf...@fu...> writes: > Matthias Andree wrote: >> BTW, can the list filters please be adjusted so as to ban + reject >> "fetchmail-users digest" in subjects? > > You do realize that under such a policy, your message (and this reply) > would be rejected.... :-) Yes, I do. It doesn't matter, because we don't have such list messages under such a policy. > Ah, but others here are. I don't see any need for any one person to look > at all the threads. I'm filtering such subjects now. If someone feels he's found a bug, he'll have to use a more catchy subject if he wants me to see the post (or perhaps file a bug at the berlios tracker). >> People with incapable mailers deserve to suffer more than >> those with capable mailers, and they can always switch to the plain >> version, or split the digest up with maildrop or procmail helper >> programs. > > On the -users list I don't see much reason for being too strict or telling > people they're using the wrong MUA. (This isn't linux-elitists, after > all.) I could see an argument for it on -devel, but it hasn't been an > issue there. It's impolite to send messages to lists with meaningless subjects, and people with inferior mailers and without a chance to split the digest up locally still have the option to switch their subscription to the "plain" format. -- Matthias Andree |
|
From: Michelle K. <lin...@fr...> - 2006-01-19 11:26:53
|
Am 2006-01-08 22:13:15, schrieb Matthias Andree:
> It's impolite to send messages to lists with meaningless subjects, and
> people with inferior mailers and without a chance to split the digest up
> locally still have the option to switch their subscription to the
> "plain" format.
Right, but what I do not understand is, that for example "procmail"
has a realy nice example in its manpages how to split a digest into
singel parts using "formail".
I am on three lists which sends digest only and I get each day 5-20
singel messages into my Mailbox without any headache.
<seufz>Nobody like RTFM</seufz>
Greetings
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/88452356 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
|
|
From: Rob M. <rob...@gm...> - 2006-01-08 21:28:38
|
On 08/01/06, Matthias Andree <mat...@gm...> wrote:
> BTW, can the list filters please be adjusted so as to ban + reject
> "fetchmail-users digest" in subjects?
It doesn't look like mailman can handle this. The closest it comes is
allowing you to make a subject with that line a spam marker, which
then requires an admin to review and act upon - a less than ideal
approach.
If anybody knows an approach that will simply bounce then I'll happily
look into it. I'd rather not simply mark them as spam as they'll
likely simply get overlooked and dropped on the floor (as does pretty
much every mail caught by the spam filters).
> I'm not looking at messages with these headers anyways, because they are
> meaningless. People with incapable mailers deserve to suffer more than
> those with capable mailers, and they can always switch to the plain
> version, or split the digest up with maildrop or procmail helper
> programs.
Or simply copy-n-paste the correct subject when hitting reply :)
--
Please keep list traffic on the list.
Rob MacGregor
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he
doesn't become a monster. Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
From: Matthias A. <mat...@gm...> - 2006-01-08 22:19:19
|
Rob MacGregor <rob...@gm...> writes: > On 08/01/06, Matthias Andree <mat...@gm...> wrote: >> BTW, can the list filters please be adjusted so as to ban + reject >> "fetchmail-users digest" in subjects? > > It doesn't look like mailman can handle this. The closest it comes is > allowing you to make a subject with that line a spam marker, which > then requires an admin to review and act upon - a less than ideal > approach. OK, but Mailman can disable digest altogether. >> I'm not looking at messages with these headers anyways, because they are >> meaningless. People with incapable mailers deserve to suffer more than >> those with capable mailers, and they can always switch to the plain >> version, or split the digest up with maildrop or procmail helper >> programs. > > Or simply copy-n-paste the correct subject when hitting reply :) That won't do. People who reply to -digest posts 1. often hijack threads, 2. break threading. Followups to my posts (as per In-Reply-To or References) will appear in boldface and in the same thread. Just pasting the right subject on the reply to the digest will break threading and such followup hiliting. Given that I'm one of the de-facto unpaid support guys, I decide what hoops people can expect me to jump, and breaking threads, replying to digest and other shipwrecks is expecting too much. I expect proper mail formatting as "payment" for my spare time. I've taken the liberty to change Subject, so it will pass my filter. -- Matthias Andree |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X