From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Apr 27 16:47:45 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id QAA16896 for ports-outgoing; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 16:47:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.statsci.com (main.statsci.com [198.145.127.110]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA16888 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 16:47:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from statsci.com by main.statsci.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0uDJiD-000r3sC; Sat, 27 Apr 96 16:47 PDT Message-Id: To: Mark Murray cc: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mh package has no POP support References: <199604271342.PAA23387@grumble.grondar.za> In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 27 Apr 1996 15:42:49 +0200." <199604271342.PAA23387@grumble.grondar.za> Reply-to: scott@statsci.com Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 16:47:36 -0700 From: Scott Blachowicz Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Mark Murray wrote: > What do the rest of you think? I know it was broken at some stage. If > I can make a basic POP service work, how about it? I seem to vaguely remember that, at some point in time, if you added POP support, you lost "normal" use (that is, 'inc' would always try to use pop). That could just be a bad memory on my part, but it would not be good if that were the case. I also seem to (more recently) see mentions of '-no*pop' option(s). It'd be nice if it could be built in such a way that it would continue to work without changes for those of us that don't use POP. (yes, I know it'd be easy to go add a '-nopop' to MY .mh_profile, but if that were the only way, it'd generate a bunch of questions "hey! my 'inc' command doesn't work any more! what happened?"). Or maybe it should be (would be?) triggered by a 'pophost' entry in the lib/mtstailor file or some such? Scott Blachowicz Ph: 206/283-8802x240 Mathsoft (Data Analysis Products Div) 1700 Westlake Ave N #500 scott@statsci.com Seattle, WA USA 98109 Scott.Blachowicz@seaslug.org