From owner-freebsd-security Thu Dec 3 21:15:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA20607 for freebsd-security-outgoing; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 21:15:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from gjp.erols.com (alex-va-n008c079.moon.jic.com [206.156.18.89]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA20602 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 21:15:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gjp@gjp.erols.com) Received: from gjp.erols.com (localhost.erols.com [127.0.0.1]) by gjp.erols.com (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA55919; Fri, 4 Dec 1998 00:12:37 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from gjp@gjp.erols.com) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.1 12/23/97 To: Robert Watson cc: Bill Woodford , ML FreeBSD Security From: "Gary Palmer" Subject: Re: mail.local In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 03 Dec 1998 12:36:36 EST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 00:12:37 -0500 Message-ID: <55915.912748357@gjp.erols.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Robert Watson wrote in message ID : > On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Bill Woodford wrote: > say, pine. My feeling is more and more that we should be using protocols > such as IMAP for mail access rather than try to fit everything into the Please don't use IMAP. It is a bloated ``designed by committee'' protocol and looks like a nightmare to impliment in an efficient (scalable) fashion. Makes me want to write my own protocol :( Gary -- Gary Palmer FreeBSD Core Team Member FreeBSD: Turning PC's into workstations. See http://www.FreeBSD.ORG/ for info To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message