[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Bug#12025: marked as done (kmail should co-exist with other mail retreival/filtering programs)
From:       owner () bugs ! kde ! org (Stephan Kulow)
Date:       2000-09-28 19:48:04
[Download RAW message or body]

Your message dated Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:34:53 +0200
with message-id <00092821345300.08512@pluto>
and subject line Bug#12025: kmail should co-exist with other mail retreival/filtering programs
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I'm
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Stephan Kulow
(administrator, KDE bugs database)

Received: (at submit) by bugs.kde.org; 28 Sep 2000 19:02:06 +0000
Received: (qmail 11377 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2000 19:01:56 -0000
Received: from sentry.gw.tislabs.com (firewall-user@192.94.214.100)
  by max.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de with SMTP; 28 Sep 2000 19:01:56 -0000
Received: by sentry.gw.tislabs.com; id PAA22530; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 15:04:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from clipper.gw.tislabs.com(10.33.1.2) by sentry.gw.tislabs.com via smap (V5.5)
	id xma022521; Thu, 28 Sep 00 15:03:59 -0400
Received: from dustpuppy.va.tislabs.com (IDENT:root@dustpuppy.va.tislabs.com [192.168.10.114])
	by clipper.gw.tislabs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA16000
	for <submit@bugs.kde.org>; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 15:00:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (dougk@localhost)
	by dustpuppy.va.tislabs.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA31053
	for <submit@bugs.kde.org>; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 15:00:36 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: dustpuppy.va.tislabs.com: dougk owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 15:00:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Douglas Kilpatrick <dougk@tislabs.com>
X-Sender: dougk@dustpuppy.va.tislabs.com
To: submit@bugs.kde.org
Subject: kmail should co-exist with other mail retreival/filtering programs
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0009281453590.29279-100000@dustpuppy.va.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


Package: kmail
Severity: wishlist

Why re-invent the wheel?  I have a perfectly good MTA, "fetchmail".  I
have a perfectly good MDA that does filtering: "procmail".  What I want
kmail to do is to view and manage the mail.

Why should I have kmail DL my mail when I've already got a perfectly good
(and very flexible) program to do that?  Maybe I use some of the advanced
features of fetchmail that kmail doesn't have yet?  Maybe I use some
esoteric feature that kmail should never have... Why does Kmail want to
tie me to its mail retreival system?

Why should I have to have kmail import the mail to its files when
I've already got it sorted out into various mailboxes?  Just read and
manage it in place...  Procmail's filtering is very flexible, cause that's
all it does.  Putting procmail-style filtering into kmail would be a
mistake, but not letting me use procmail in a straight forward manner is
also a mistake.

This is basically why I still use XFmail.

Doug
-- 
dougk@tislabs.com
dkilpatr@nai.com


_______________________________________________
Kmail Developers mailing list
Kmail@master.kde.org
http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]