Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:35:09 +0200 (MET DST) From: Marco Molteni <molter@logic.it> To: Allen Louden <alouden@access.mountain.net> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: popclient vs fetchmail Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970925112030.500A-100000@dumbwinter.ecomotor.it> In-Reply-To: <34282C41.D272BEE8@access.mountain.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Allen Louden wrote: > > Richard Lyon wrote: > > > > > What advantages are there in using fetchmail > > > instead of popclient? > > > > Can one send and receive with either of these two? The functionality of the two is the same. They only fetch mail from a pop3 server to your local machine. They don't receive automatically mail (like sendmail), you have to start them explicitly (eg from the command line or from cron). If you want to send mail, you have to use something who speaks SMTP (simple mail transfer protocol). The standard on Unix system is sendmail. An easier one is smail. A new one, both easy and secure, is qmail (www.qmail.org), which I recommend. I suggest you to start reading the FreeBSD handbook at www.freebsd.org. Well, if you want to use Netscape for reading/sending mail, you simply configure it like you'd do for Netscape for Winbleah. In this case, you don't need neither fetchmail neither sendmail. This solution doesn't seeems to me the Unix way to do things, anyway. Cheers Marco Molteni Computer Science student at the Universita' degli studi di Milano, Italy. UNIX _is_ user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970925112030.500A-100000>