On 15/04/2012 12:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
I've no idea what 'Outlook' is.

An email and calendaring client. Talks to Exchange servers, which are
well known for having huge, regularly corrupted, proprietary databases.

Now you know what I do.

Microsoft Outlook is intended for business use. It requires Exchange
Server for collaborative feature use.

Outside of a work environment, Microsoft Office software (OS and
Applications) is about 10% fully functional. The same goes for
Professional versions of their operating systems, which are configured
in the box to be preferably sitting on an Active Directory Domain.

So consumers complain of application bloat.... they've really been sold
the wrong product, and worse - they receive little or no relevent training.

Best place for them in fact is cloud based computing. No local OS and
application installation nonsense.

But ...

Right. I'd not want by diary details kept on a server. Although there's
nothing secret, it would give details of when I'm out of the house, etc.
And all the anniversaries etc I need - just the thing someone might want
for identity theft.

... completely understandable consumer paranoia says no.

--
Adrian C

On 15/04/2012 12:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Huge
escribió:

An email and calendaring client. Talks to Exchange servers, which are
well
known for having huge, regularly corrupted, proprietary databases.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is M$haft, after all.

Now you know what I do.

I would say I feel your pain, but I managed to swerve and avoid anything
to do with $exchange.

I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on the
front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared with
microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No pop
clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

They have relented a bit on that, in that you can now support pop on
both client and serve side...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 14/04/2012 10:24, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

I told you one that does, and now you are off on some wiggle session
prattling about MIME being rejected by the server etc.

I don't need to wiggle, as you pointed out it was a private server so
*all* the arguments being used about it being usenet are irrelevant.

And even knowing that, *you* still interjected about binary rejection and
bandwidth limitations... ?

Well I am not the one claiming that html uses too much bandwidth.


Some just wanted to use cr@p linux readers that couldn't handle anything
other than plain text. That is not a usenet issue at all.

Who were these "some"?

Mostly software engineers as opposed to us who were mainly hardware
engineers.



It was you who queried clients that support MIME images...

No I queried what clients supported the long established standards for
images in plain text, which you still haven't said.
MIME doesn't really count as its no more plain text than someone posting
encoded executables (known as binaries).

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2012-04-14, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

But if it's only available with a pro set - when news groups are
essentially a hobby or leisure thing - what does that tell you about MS?

Outlook, which is what is on Huge's CD, doesn't do usenet. Outlook
Express, a completely different program, does.

Phew. dennis *is* a useless old ****, after all.

You are pathetic, that is what I told you.
Outlook is not a part of windows it is an optional part of Office.
OE used to be a part of windows but hasn't been since XP however you can
download what it was changed to and that is WLM.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Huge
escribió:

An email and calendaring client. Talks to Exchange servers, which are
well
known for having huge, regularly corrupted, proprietary databases.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is M$haft, after all.

Now you know what I do.

I would say I feel your pain, but I managed to swerve and avoid anything
to do with $exchange.

I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on the
front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared with
microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No pop
clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Funny, I use Outlook and it does POP to a local file.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Huge wrote:
I've no idea what 'Outlook' is.

An email and calendaring client. Talks to Exchange servers, which are
well known for having huge, regularly corrupted, proprietary databases.

Now you know what I do.

Right. I'd not want by diary details kept on a server. Although there's
nothing secret, it would give details of when I'm out of the house, etc.
And all the anniversaries etc I need - just the thing someone might want
for identity theft.

But given the MS track record on non compliance of usenet progs, I
doubt
they'll change now anyway.

Outlook doesn't do Usenet.

Yup - I got that far, no thanks to Dennis.

Its not my fault if you can't read.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Huge
escribió:

An email and calendaring client. Talks to Exchange servers, which
are well
known for having huge, regularly corrupted, proprietary databases.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is M$haft, after all.

Now you know what I do.

I would say I feel your pain, but I managed to swerve and avoid anything
to do with $exchange.

I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on
the front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared with
microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No
pop clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Funny, I use Outlook and it does POP to a local file.

Exchange is not outlook Dennis.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

En el artículo , Huge
escribió:

Exchange does have one thing going for it; it isn't Lotus Domino.

Eww, you just reminded me of Lotus Bloats. Thanks.

*twitch*

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

En el artículo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

Right. I'd not want by diary details kept on a server. Although there's
nothing secret, it would give details of when I'm out of the house, etc.
And all the anniversaries etc I need - just the thing someone might want
for identity theft.

Interesting thought, considering the move towards storing data like that
in the cloud - thinking of Google Calendar, Apple iThings storing
contacts in the iCloud, etc.

Spotty teen hacks iCloud and immediately has details of where and when
burglars can find their mark's property empty and nick lots of valuable
iThings...

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Huge
escribió:

An email and calendaring client. Talks to Exchange servers, which are
well
known for having huge, regularly corrupted, proprietary databases.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is M$haft, after all.

Now you know what I do.

I would say I feel your pain, but I managed to swerve and avoid
anything
to do with $exchange.

I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on the
front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared with
microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No pop
clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Funny, I use Outlook and it does POP to a local file.

Exchange is not outlook Dennis.


Exchange isn't a POP client so you had to be talking about outlook and not
exchange server.

On 15/04/2012 19:15, dennis@home prattled:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message


I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on
the front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared with
microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No
pop clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Funny, I use Outlook and it does POP to a local file.

Re-read the words "when it first appeared"....

--
Adrian C

On 15/04/2012 20:34, Adrian C wrote:
On 15/04/2012 19:15, dennis@home prattled:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message


I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on
the front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared with
microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No
pop clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Funny, I use Outlook and it does POP to a local file.

Re-read the words "when it first appeared"....


Mind ye, he was talking about exchange.... So you've also messed your
shorts there.

Your Reading 0/10
My Reading 3.5/10

--
Adrian C

"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
On 15/04/2012 20:34, Adrian C wrote:
On 15/04/2012 19:15, dennis@home prattled:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message


I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on
the front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared with
microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No
pop clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Funny, I use Outlook and it does POP to a local file.

Re-read the words "when it first appeared"....


Mind ye, he was talking about exchange.... So you've also messed your
shorts there.

Your Reading 0/10
My Reading 3.5/10

Since when did mail servers do POP to local files?
It isn't even likely to have access to local files.
Local as living on a server doesn't make much sense.

On 15/04/2012 19:35, dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Huge
escribió:

An email and calendaring client. Talks to Exchange servers, which
are well
known for having huge, regularly corrupted, proprietary databases.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is M$haft, after all.

Now you know what I do.


Ok, for the painfully dumb:

I would say I feel your pain, but I managed to swerve and avoid
anything to do with $exchange.

You will note the conversation is now about Exchange

TNP makes a comment about Exchange:

I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on
the front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared with
microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No
pop clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

and denboi interjects the completely unrelated comment of:

Funny, I use Outlook and it does POP to a local file.

TNP beats me to it in pointing out that you are barking up the wrong
tree yet again:

Exchange is not outlook Dennis.

And now you wiggle (most unconvincingly):

Exchange isn't a POP client so you had to be talking about outlook and
not exchange server.

Nope dennis, either you were simply wrong, or had got the wrong end of
the stick. You choose.

(also FYI: exchange now has a POP3 connector, so it can download mail
from other POP3 accounts, and can also be persuaded to support POP3
clients in turn)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 15/04/2012 20:48, dennis@home wrote:


"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
On 15/04/2012 20:34, Adrian C wrote:
On 15/04/2012 19:15, dennis@home prattled:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message


I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on
the front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared with
microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No
pop clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Funny, I use Outlook and it does POP to a local file.

Re-read the words "when it first appeared"....


Mind ye, he was talking about exchange.... So you've also messed your
shorts there.

Your Reading 0/10
My Reading 3.5/10

Since when did mail servers do POP to local files?

Most of them will IME. Hence they can gateway from external mail stores.
(files local to the server that is)

It isn't even likely to have access to local files.
Local as living on a server doesn't make much sense.

Of course it does. Exchange server sucks email from other servers,
stores it locally in its DB, and then hands it out to its clients on
demand. Not rocket science is it?



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 15/04/2012 20:48, dennis@home wrote:

Your Reading 0/10
My Reading 3.5/10

Since when did mail servers do POP to local files?

Hello Muddles....

Back then, early dark days, there was a desktop application called
'Exchange Mail Client' that only spoke to Exchange server.

Later on, when this became Outlook, Microsoft created two modes of
installation - "Internet Mail only" and "Coorporate Workgroup".

The former intended for home use with POP, the latter for Exchange - I
don't recall if initally ye were able to set up POP/SMTP details in that
to access an outside mail service, while connected also to Exchange.

Anyway, the POP support was a typical Microsoft kludge and it took
several versions to become properly integrated, amidst the other
problems Microsoft gave themselves shoring the wretched thing up
againgst numerous script security exploits.

It isn't even likely to have access to local files.
Local as living on a serverdoesn't make much sense.

?


BTW In all its revisions, Outlook is still a mess. Other Mail programs
allow saving of contact details in the vCard (.vcf) format. Have a look
how Outlook 2010 expects ye to import them.

--
Adrian C

Adrian C wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
wrote:

I've no idea what 'Outlook' is.

An email and calendaring client. Talks to Exchange servers, which are
well known for having huge, regularly corrupted, proprietary databases.

Now you know what I do.

Microsoft Outlook is intended for business use.

Its intended for a lot more than just business use.

It requires Exchange Server for collaborative feature use.

And many don't need collaborative feature use.

Outside of a work environment, Microsoft Office software (OS and
Applications) is about 10% fully functional.

That number is pure fiction.

The same goes for Professional versions of their operating systems, which
are configured in the box to be preferably sitting on an Active Directory
Domain.

That's overstated too. They work fine in non business situations.

So consumers complain of application bloat.... they've really been sold
the wrong product, and worse - they receive little or no relevent
training.

Modern systems arent about training anymore.

Best place for them in fact is cloud based computing.

Nope. Hordes do fine with local computing.

No local OS and application installation nonsense.

But plenty of other nonsense like having to have net access all the time.

Not that practical for many.

But ...

Right. I'd not want by diary details kept on a server. Although there's
nothing secret, it would give details of when I'm out of the house, etc.
And all the anniversaries etc I need - just the thing someone might want
for identity theft.

.. completely understandable consumer paranoia says no.

Pity there is no alternative with 'cloud'

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Huge
escribió:

An email and calendaring client. Talks to Exchange servers, which
are well
known for having huge, regularly corrupted, proprietary databases.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is M$haft, after all.

Now you know what I do.

I would say I feel your pain, but I managed to swerve and avoid
anything
to do with $exchange.

I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on
the front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared with
microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No
pop clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Funny, I use Outlook and it does POP to a local file.

Exchange is not outlook Dennis.


Exchange isn't a POP client so you had to be talking about outlook and
not exchange server.


No, I was talking about no pop server on exchange.

So 'No pop clients to a local mail folder' (could be implemented using
it as a mail server. )



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

dennis@home wrote:


"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
On 15/04/2012 20:34, Adrian C wrote:
On 15/04/2012 19:15, dennis@home prattled:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message


I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on
the front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared with
microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No
pop clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Funny, I use Outlook and it does POP to a local file.

Re-read the words "when it first appeared"....


Mind ye, he was talking about exchange.... So you've also messed your
shorts there.

Your Reading 0/10
My Reading 3.5/10

Since when did mail servers do POP to local files?

since forever dennis.

In the non Microsoft world.


In fact I ported the very first pop3 server ever used in a british ISP
to SCO unix from PDS and sent it off to Cliff Stanford at Demon systems,
who thanked me and never paid me a penny...

If you know anything about POP it was most often used then and generally
is used today to download and read mail LOCALLY. its not really up to
managing mail held ON the server - Imap is a better protocol for that.



It isn't even likely to have access to local files.
Local as living on a server doesn't make much sense.

Thats because you cant talk English or understand it Dennis.

In et context of a client server relationship 'local files' are held to
be local to the client, not the server.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On 15/04/2012 21:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

Exchange isn't a POP client so you had to be talking about outlook and
not exchange server.


No, I was talking about no pop server on exchange.


Ah,

So 'No pop clients to a local mail folder' (could be implemented using
it as a mail server. )

Microsoft wanted to sell Client Access Licenses and lock folks to their
own propriety client?

--
Adrian C

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 15/04/2012 20:48, dennis@home wrote:


"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
On 15/04/2012 20:34, Adrian C wrote:
On 15/04/2012 19:15, dennis@home prattled:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message


I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on
the front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared with
microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No
pop clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Anyway read what you have quoted "very corporate" ,"no pop clients", "can't
have that".
Well Outlook is a POP client and guess what its a M$ corporate product.
What I said was true and relevant even if you didn't get it.
I guess you had better stop reading what i write as you never appear to
understand even the simple things.


Funny, I use Outlook and it does POP to a local file.

Re-read the words "when it first appeared"....


Mind ye, he was talking about exchange.... So you've also messed your
shorts there.

Your Reading 0/10
My Reading 3.5/10

Since when did mail servers do POP to local files?

Most of them will IME. Hence they can gateway from external mail stores.
(files local to the server that is)

So not local files then.


It isn't even likely to have access to local files.
Local as living on a server doesn't make much sense.

Of course it does. Exchange server sucks email from other servers, stores
it locally in its DB, and then hands it out to its clients on demand. Not
rocket science is it?

So now you want to believe local files and databases are actually the same
thing and have the meaning TNP implied..

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:

On 15/04/2012 20:48, dennis@home wrote:


"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
On 15/04/2012 20:34, Adrian C wrote:
On 15/04/2012 19:15, dennis@home prattled:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message

I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying
bolted on
the front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared
with
microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate
though. No
pop clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Funny, I use Outlook and it does POP to a local file.

Re-read the words "when it first appeared"....


Mind ye, he was talking about exchange.... So you've also messed your
shorts there.

Your Reading 0/10
My Reading 3.5/10

Since when did mail servers do POP to local files?

Most of them will IME. Hence they can gateway from external mail
stores. (files local to the server that is)

I haven't been following the details of this thread as I don't do
Windows, but IMO the only email client worth a damn was Eudora. That
worked very nicely under Mac and Windows - I started using it in 1991 or
so (version 0.001 approx).


I a a brilliant Eudora T-shirt. It finally fell to pieces last year,
some 5 years after I replaced Eudora with an early mozilla-y thing.

I made a LOT of money selling eudora.


On both platforms it would POP-login to a mail host, download any new
mail to be stored locally, and optionally delete it from the server,
after which you had your mail and could start looking at it.

In fact as Eudora is no longer supported, I've written my own POP3
client which operates on the same lines and provides much the same
features.


most people use thunderfart these days..

I've never used IMAP so can't really comment on it.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Huge
escribió:

An email and calendaring client. Talks to Exchange servers, which
are well
known for having huge, regularly corrupted, proprietary databases.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is M$haft, after all.

Now you know what I do.

I would say I feel your pain, but I managed to swerve and avoid
anything
to do with $exchange.

I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on
the front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared with
microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No
pop clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Funny, I use Outlook and it does POP to a local file.

Exchange is not outlook Dennis.


Exchange isn't a POP client so you had to be talking about outlook and
not exchange server.


No, I was talking about no pop server on exchange.

So you meant to say exchange isn't a POP server?
True but it didn't need to be.


So 'No pop clients to a local mail folder' (could be implemented using it
as a mail server. )

Where does "to a local mail folder" mean with regard to a POP server?

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Huge
escribió:

An email and calendaring client. Talks to Exchange servers,
which are well
known for having huge, regularly corrupted, proprietary databases.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is M$haft, after all.

Now you know what I do.

I would say I feel your pain, but I managed to swerve and avoid
anything
to do with $exchange.

I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted
on the front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared
with microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate
though. No pop clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Funny, I use Outlook and it does POP to a local file.

Exchange is not outlook Dennis.


Exchange isn't a POP client so you had to be talking about outlook
and not exchange server.


No, I was talking about no pop server on exchange.

So you meant to say exchange isn't a POP server?
True but it didn't need to be.


So 'No pop clients to a local mail folder' (could be implemented using
it as a mail server. )

Where does "to a local mail folder" mean with regard to a POP server?



where the client is is local to the client dennis.

Possibly in your case the planet Zonk.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 22:15:40 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

I haven't been following the details of this thread as I don't do
Windows, but IMO the only email client worth a damn was Eudora. That
worked very nicely under Mac and Windows - I started using it in 1991 or
so (version 0.001 approx).

I use Claws Mail on FreeBSD (as does SWMBO) and the rest of the family
use it on Windows.

On both platforms it would POP-login to a mail host, download any new
mail to be stored locally, and optionally delete it from the server,
after which you had your mail and could start looking at it.

Yup, all that.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 15/04/2012 19:20, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el , Huge
escribió:

Exchange does have one thing going for it; it isn't Lotus Domino.

Eww, you just reminded me of Lotus Bloats. Thanks.

*twitch*

I remember when it came out - innovative, exciting stuff.

We've still got some stuff here using it. Shudder.

On 15/04/2012 22:35, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

In fact as Eudora is no longer supported, I've written my own POP3
client which operates on the same lines and provides much the same
features.

most people use thunderfart these days..

It has a number of major drawbacks, like for openers I can't edit a
received mail.

Drag or copy to the Drafts folder, then select it in that folder, and
click the Edit button ;-)

In a compose-mail window it seems to insist having one
header line for each destination email address you specify.

You can type multiple recipients onto a single line separated by commas
if you want. It will then sort them into separate lines. It show
(typically) 4 at a time in a scrollable addressee window.

You can't
even have the compose email window in a tab yet, either. Useless.

You got me there... ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 15/04/2012 22:19, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 15/04/2012 20:48, dennis@home wrote:


"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
On 15/04/2012 20:34, Adrian C wrote:
On 15/04/2012 19:15, dennis@home prattled:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message


I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on
the front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared with
microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No
pop clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Anyway read what you have quoted "very corporate" ,"no pop clients",
"can't have that".
Well Outlook is a POP client and guess what its a M$ corporate product.

Get a grip you dozey twonk, he was talking about exchange when it first
came out.

What I said was true and relevant even if you didn't get it.

True, yes: outlook does pop. Relevant, not at all, since we were talking
about the release version of exchange and not about outlook.

Most of them will IME. Hence they can gateway from external mail
stores. (files local to the server that is)

So not local files then.

Yes, think about it. If the files are stored on the same machine that is
retrieving the messages from a remote sever, then they are definitely
local.

It isn't even likely to have access to local files.
Local as living on a server doesn't make much sense.

Of course it does. Exchange server sucks email from other servers,
stores it locally in its DB, and then hands it out to its clients on
demand. Not rocket science is it?

So now you want to believe local files and databases are actually the

Well given that true random access and hashed FB systems that access a
disk without also allocating the used blocks into a file are these days
very rare, I think its safe to say yes.

same thing and have the meaning TNP implied..

Everyone except you seems to understand...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 15/04/2012 22:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
On 15/04/2012 20:34, Adrian C wrote:
On 15/04/2012 19:15, dennis@home prattled:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message


I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on
the front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared with
microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No
pop clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Funny, I use Outlook and it does POP to a local file.

Re-read the words "when it first appeared"....


Mind ye, he was talking about exchange.... So you've also messed your
shorts there.

Your Reading 0/10
My Reading 3.5/10

Since when did mail servers do POP to local files?

since forever dennis.

In the non Microsoft world.


In fact I ported the very first pop3 server ever used in a british ISP
to SCO unix from PDS and sent it off to Cliff Stanford at Demon systems,
who thanked me and never paid me a penny...

Par for the course then ;-)

I remember when I fist got a demon account, they did not even run a pop
server for their subscribers at that time. One had to run a SMTP daemon
in order to be able to receive mail.

If you know anything about POP it was most often used then and generally
is used today to download and read mail LOCALLY. its not really up to
managing mail held ON the server - Imap is a better protocol for that.

Indeed.

It isn't even likely to have access to local files.
Local as living on a server doesn't make much sense.

Thats because you cant talk English or understand it Dennis.

In et context of a client server relationship 'local files' are held to
be local to the client, not the server.

Of course Exchange server can act as a client to other email servers now
with its POP3 connector... but lets not confuse the poor boy further!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 16/04/2012 00:03, Clive George wrote:
On 15/04/2012 19:20, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el , Huge
escribió:

Exchange does have one thing going for it; it isn't Lotus Domino.

Eww, you just reminded me of Lotus Bloats. Thanks.

*twitch*

I remember when it came out - innovative, exciting stuff.

We've still got some stuff here using it. Shudder.

I remember using it at one clients where all they seemed to do with it,
was email... IIRC it was a bit frustrating to use for email if one was
used to quoting and replying to messages inline, since it could not do
that.

(I wrote a quick hack called "YouCanQuoteMe" that roundtriped whatever
was in the paste buffer and added "" to the front of each line after
formatting them to length, to restore life to the universe the way it
was intended to be!)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 22:15:40 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

[-snip-]

I haven't been following the details of this thread as I don't do
Windows, but IMO the only email client worth a damn was Eudora. That
worked very nicely under Mac and Windows - I started using it in 1991 or
so (version 0.001 approx).

I've never found a better email client than Eudora. It's a real shame
they stopped developing it.

There is an OS version of Eudora but I've not tried it.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:34:34 +0100, "Richard Russell"
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:48:29 +0100, Steve Firth
wrote:

Only ******* emote about BBC Basic, it's dead, Dave.

It's OT for this thread, but for your information BBC BASIC is currently
one of the most popular languages for teaching programming in UK schools.
For example it is recommended by the OCR examining board:

http://www.gcsecomputing.org.uk/support/index.html
http://social.ocr.org.uk/files/ocr/G...eet_180112.doc

Any flavour of BASIC is a poor choice of language for teaching
programming IMHO.

"GOTO" ... need I say more?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:38:29 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

[-snip-]

However, XP mode is in reality a complete virtual machine running a real
copy of WinXP. There is nothing to stop you using any other virtual PC
hypervisor (including Microsoft's own Virtual PC) and installing your
own real copy of XP on that.

Running virtual machines can be very useful. However I would avoid
Microsoft Virtual PC. It's v-e-r-y slow. Oracle (Sun) VirtualBox is
much better IMHO.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
On 15/04/2012 20:34, Adrian C wrote:
On 15/04/2012 19:15, dennis@home prattled:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message


I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on
the front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared with
microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No
pop clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Funny, I use Outlook and it does POP to a local file.

Re-read the words "when it first appeared"....


Mind ye, he was talking about exchange.... So you've also messed your
shorts there.

Your Reading 0/10
My Reading 3.5/10

Since when did mail servers do POP to local files?

since forever dennis.

In the non Microsoft world.


In fact I ported the very first pop3 server ever used in a british ISP to
SCO unix from PDS and sent it off to Cliff Stanford at Demon systems, who
thanked me and never paid me a penny...

If you know anything about POP it was most often used then and generally
is used today to download and read mail LOCALLY. its not really up to
managing mail held ON the server - Imap is a better protocol for that.


That's why POP works with local files, local to the client not to the
server.
IMAP works with files local to the server.

See I was correct all along.
I just need to get you to admit that you were wrong by getting you to
explain it.




It isn't even likely to have access to local files.
Local as living on a server doesn't make much sense.

Thats because you cant talk English or understand it Dennis.

In et context of a client server relationship 'local files' are held to
be local to the client, not the server.


That is exactly right and what I said.

On 16/04/2012 10:46, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:34:34 +0100, "Richard Russell"
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:48:29 +0100, Steve
wrote:

Only ******* emote about BBC Basic, it's dead, Dave.

It's OT for this thread, but for your information BBC BASIC is currently
one of the most popular languages for teaching programming in UK schools.
For example it is recommended by the OCR examining board:

http://www.gcsecomputing.org.uk/support/index.html
http://social.ocr.org.uk/files/ocr/G...eet_180112.doc

Any flavour of BASIC is a poor choice of language for teaching
programming IMHO.

"GOTO" ... need I say more?

VB (and BBC Basic) have procedual and loop statements, that if used
properly negate the need to scatter GOTO statements around the source. I
can write a program in VB that would be structured identically in C (or
whatever) just replacing little bits. No references to line numbers
required.

Of course, before that there were plenty of implementations of BASIC
that were quite horrible, and the use of spaghetti loops built around IF
THEN...GOTO was a necessity. All the other mad and bad home computers on
the dealer shelf, other than me cherished BBC Micro.

Thanks Richard ;-)

--
Adrian C

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 15/04/2012 22:19, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 15/04/2012 20:48, dennis@home wrote:


"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
On 15/04/2012 20:34, Adrian C wrote:
On 15/04/2012 19:15, dennis@home prattled:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message


I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted
on
the front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared
with
microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate though.
No
pop clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Anyway read what you have quoted "very corporate" ,"no pop clients",
"can't have that".
Well Outlook is a POP client and guess what its a M$ corporate product.

Get a grip you dozey twonk, he was talking about exchange when it first
came out.

What I said was true and relevant even if you didn't get it.

True, yes: outlook does pop. Relevant, not at all, since we were talking
about the release version of exchange and not about outlook.

Most of them will IME. Hence they can gateway from external mail
stores. (files local to the server that is)

So not local files then.

Yes, think about it. If the files are stored on the same machine that is
retrieving the messages from a remote sever, then they are definitely
local.

It isn't even likely to have access to local files.
Local as living on a server doesn't make much sense.

Of course it does. Exchange server sucks email from other servers,
stores it locally in its DB, and then hands it out to its clients on
demand. Not rocket science is it?

So now you want to believe local files and databases are actually the

Well given that true random access and hashed FB systems that access a
disk without also allocating the used blocks into a file are these days
very rare, I think its safe to say yes.

same thing and have the meaning TNP implied..

Everyone except you seems to understand...

I understand.
A POP client downloads stuff to a local mail file.
Typically the server is somewhere out there on the net.
The local files are on the machine the client is on.
The servers mail database is not a local file to the POP client at all.
You can argue what you like but it doesn't change the facts.

Have you worked out the difference between a LED source and a filament
source yet?

On 16/04/2012 10:46, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:34:34 +0100, "Richard Russell"
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:48:29 +0100, Steve
wrote:

Only ******* emote about BBC Basic, it's dead, Dave.

It's OT for this thread, but for your information BBC BASIC is currently
one of the most popular languages for teaching programming in UK schools.
For example it is recommended by the OCR examining board:

http://www.gcsecomputing.org.uk/support/index.html
http://social.ocr.org.uk/files/ocr/G...eet_180112.doc

Any flavour of BASIC is a poor choice of language for teaching
programming IMHO.

"GOTO" ... need I say more?

Exists in C too, but in both languages you don't need to actually use it.

(apart from error handling in old VB, spit)

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Huge
escribió:

An email and calendaring client. Talks to Exchange servers, which
are well
known for having huge, regularly corrupted, proprietary databases.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is M$haft, after all.

Now you know what I do.

I would say I feel your pain, but I managed to swerve and avoid
anything
to do with $exchange.

I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on
the front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared with
microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No
pop clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!

Funny, I use Outlook and it does POP to a local file.

Exchange is not outlook Dennis.


Exchange isn't a POP client so you had to be talking about outlook and
not exchange server.


No, I was talking about no pop server on exchange.

So you meant to say exchange isn't a POP server?
True but it didn't need to be.


So 'No pop clients to a local mail folder' (could be implemented using
it as a mail server. )

Where does "to a local mail folder" mean with regard to a POP server?



where the client is is local to the client dennis.

Possibly in your case the planet Zonk.


You don't half wriggle.
Just because I pointed out that your statement "No pop clients to a local
mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!" is cr@p and M$ do have a POP client
called outlook and one called OE too. You might as well say unix doesn't
have a POP client just because its called something other than unix.

On 16/04/2012 12:27, dennis@home wrote:

Everyone except you seems to understand...

I understand.
A POP client downloads stuff to a local mail file.
Typically the server is somewhere out there on the net.
The local files are on the machine the client is on.
The servers mail database is not a local file to the POP client at all.
You can argue what you like but it doesn't change the facts.

You know little about _servers_ and the connections they make.

--
Adrian C

VB (and BBC Basic) have procedual and loop statements, that if used
properly negate the need to scatter GOTO statements around the
source. I can write a program in VB that would be structured
identically in C (or whatever) just replacing little bits. No
references to line numbers required.


Does the use of GOTO matter much - or at all - with modern compilers?

I ask as I thought that modern compilers broke stuff down into control
structures so they didn't care if you used goto or cleverer stuff. But
pl bear in mind that for me "modern" is anything after the mid-70s ;(
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid