The last time I used a "mail client" it was for an employee account . And only for company required issues. The experience confirmed the insanity of Outlook. Before that I used PINE running on my AT/286 thru a dial shell session. Which got replaced by webmails beginning with the PRE-M$ incarnation of Hotmail Thence to Operamail as it played nice with both Win and Lin versions of Opera Browser. Currently Gmail also shows me life with no mail client can be easy. Yes, there are some issues of backup and dubious degrees of "privacy decay" have been stated. But since my life is lacking the drama needing worry about privacy in mundane emails?.
On Jan 3, 2008 6:56 PM, Oren Beck [email protected] wrote:
But since my life is lacking the drama needing worry about privacy in mundane emails?.
Good. Famous last words.
On Thu, January 3, 2008 18:56, Oren Beck wrote:
The last time I used a "mail client" it was for an employee account .
Currently Gmail also shows me life with no mail client can be easy.
Silly, of course you're using a mail cleint, it's the gmail web client. Just like someone using Squirrel mail as their client.
There are those who use emacs as their mail client. I suppose one could come up with a way to use cat and vi to read and edit, and you wouldn't really call that using a client. _That_ would be life with no mail client.
On Jan 4, 2008 1:24 PM, Jonathan Hutchins [email protected] wrote:
There are those who use emacs as their mail client. I suppose one could come up with a way to use cat and vi to read and edit, and you wouldn't really call that using a client. _That_ would be life with no mail client.
you could just telnet to your POP3 and SMTP servers; that would be using the telnet e-mail client
On Friday 04 January 2008, David Nicol wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 1:24 PM, Jonathan Hutchins [email protected] wrote:
There are those who use emacs as their mail client. I suppose one could come up with a way to use cat and vi to read and edit, and you wouldn't really call that using a client. _That_ would be life with no mail client.
you could just telnet to your POP3 and SMTP servers; that would be using the telnet e-mail client
I don't believe either POP3 or SMTP support the Telnet protocol. So using a Telnet client *might* work, but that is a coincidence from the simplicity of the protocols involved.
Depending on how technical you want to get, you can't really access email without some sort of email client or mail user agent. Something has to retrieve the mail from the server, and some consider a human typing protocol commands directly into a terminal to be a "client" of sorts. You could possibly call it "life with no software client specifically intended to handle email."
On the telnet issue: a telnet client does work, though nc is a much better choice. I have yet to run into a POP3 or SMTP server that will choke on telnet terminal negotiations, which telnet clients send but nc does not. Since a telnet client is a little bit more common on standard OS installs, I have seen it commonly used for dirty troubleshooting of services like SMTP and POP3.
But seriously, shouldn't you be accessing your mail over non-plain-text protocols that you can't get to with the likes of telnet?
~Bradley
Luke -Jr wrote:
On Friday 04 January 2008, David Nicol wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 1:24 PM, Jonathan Hutchins [email protected] wrote:
There are those who use emacs as their mail client. I suppose one could come up with a way to use cat and vi to read and edit, and you wouldn't really call that using a client. _That_ would be life with no mail client.
you could just telnet to your POP3 and SMTP servers; that would be using the telnet e-mail client
I don't believe either POP3 or SMTP support the Telnet protocol. So using a Telnet client *might* work, but that is a coincidence from the simplicity of the protocols involved. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On Jan 4, 2008 2:10 PM, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
you could just telnet to your POP3 and SMTP servers; that would be using the telnet e-mail client
I don't believe either POP3 or SMTP support the Telnet protocol. So using a Telnet client *might* work, but that is a coincidence from the simplicity of the protocols involved.
Any protocol that uses TCP and human-readable text "supports" the *telnet* * client*. That's the way most of the Internet got designed. When you're testing a server, you telnet to it and converse via the protocol you're trying to implement. Once you get the server running, you can implement a client that talks to it.
On Saturday 05 January 2008, Monty J. Harder wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 2:10 PM, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
you could just telnet to your POP3 and SMTP servers; that would be using the telnet e-mail client
I don't believe either POP3 or SMTP support the Telnet protocol. So using a Telnet client *might* work, but that is a coincidence from the simplicity of the protocols involved.
Any protocol that uses TCP and human-readable text "supports" the *telnet*
- client*. That's the way most of the Internet got designed. When you're
testing a server, you telnet to it and converse via the protocol you're trying to implement. Once you get the server running, you can implement a client that talks to it.
Which telnet client? While it may often work in practice, how many non-telnet protocols allow for Telnet features like AYT, or feature negotiation?
On Jan 5, 2008 11:49 PM, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
Any protocol that uses TCP and human-readable text "supports" the
*telnet*
- client*. That's the way most of the Internet got designed. When
you're
testing a server, you telnet to it and converse via the protocol you're trying to implement. Once you get the server running, you can implement
a
client that talks to it.
Which telnet client? While it may often work in practice, how many non-telnet protocols allow for Telnet features like AYT, or feature negotiation?
Pretty much any telnet client. AYT is one of the codes in the range F0-FF, (and is only to be interpreted as such if immediately preceded by FF) which won't be used by 7-bit ASCII. That's what most Internet protocols have traditionally used, and even UTF-8 won't use FF.
These protocols were designed by people who wanted to minimize the chance that legitimate data would have to be "escaped", and designed them to not conflict with one another.
-
Arthur Pemberton -
Bradley Hook -
David Nicol -
Jonathan Hutchins -
Luke -Jr -
Monty J. Harder -
Oren Beck