From owner-freebsd-isp Fri Jul 3 02:08:33 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA16782 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 02:08:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from shell.futuresouth.com (tim@shell.futuresouth.com [198.78.58.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA16740 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 02:08:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tim@shell.futuresouth.com) Received: (from tim@localhost) by shell.futuresouth.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA00368; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 04:08:13 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <19980703040813.08250@futuresouth.com> Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 04:08:13 -0500 From: Tim Tsai To: "W. Reilly Cooley, Esq." Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CUCIPOP? References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88 In-Reply-To: ; from W. Reilly Cooley, Esq. on Thu, Jul 02, 1998 at 11:54:28AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, Jul 02, 1998 at 11:54:28AM -0700, W. Reilly Cooley, Esq. wrote: > I've read a couple of messages in other lists recommending CUCIPOP in > light of the recent exploits of QPOPPER. Has anyone tried this? What are > you opinions? One thing obviously irritating about QPOPPER is the > difficultly in transferring large attachments. Our problem with CUCIPOP was that it does not mark the messages as "read" if you don't delete the messages. I understand that there are good technical reasons for it, but we had a number of users that complained due to privacy issues. Otherwise it is an excellent package. Tim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message