Is there a good console-based POP3/SMTP compatible mail reader? - Setup

This is a discussion on Is there a good console-based POP3/SMTP compatible mail reader? - Setup ; Hi folks, I ran man on pico and pine and neither seem to support POP3. Is there a console based mail reader similar to pine that does? Thanks....

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: Is there a good console-based POP3/SMTP compatible mail reader?

  1. Is there a good console-based POP3/SMTP compatible mail reader?

    Hi folks,

    I ran man on pico and pine and neither seem to support POP3.
    Is there a console based mail reader similar to pine that does?

    Thanks.

  2. Re: Is there a good console-based POP3/SMTP compatible mail reader?

    On 2008-02-24, plenty900@yahoo.com wrote:
    > Hi folks,
    >
    > I ran man on pico and pine and neither seem to support POP3.
    > Is there a console based mail reader similar to pine that does?
    >
    > Thanks.


    I use fetchmail for pop3. Lots and lots of people do. It's very
    easy to use.

    Best to have it hand the mail over to procmail. Here's a typical ~/.fetchmailrc:

    (it should have only rw permissions for user: -rw-------)

    ---------------------------
    poll mail.wherever.net
    proto pop3
    user "me@wherever.net"
    pass "xxxxxxxxxx"
    is username here
    and wants mda "/usr/bin/formail -s /usr/bin/procmail"
    fetchall
    flush
    ------------------------------

    Formail comes with procmail. Here's the only ~/.procmailrc you need
    to get started, but it's a very versatile mail filter:

    ---------------------------------
    SHELL=/bin/sh
    PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin
    MAILDIR=/home/username/Mail #you'd better make sure it exists
    DEFAULT=$MAILDIR/inbox
    LOGFILE=/home/username/.proclog #recommended
    COMSAT=no
    VERBOSE=no

    :0
    ${DEFAULT}
    -------------------------------------

    So to fetch your mail, just enter

    fetchmail

    And make sure your MUA, pine or mutt or whatever, is pointed
    at /home/Mail.

    For sending your mail to your ISP's mailserver, I recommend msmtp.

    It is also very easy to use. Here's a typical ~/.msmtprc:


    -----------------------------------
    account default
    host mail.wherever.net
    #port 587 # only if ISP requires encrypted authentication
    logfile ~/.msmtp-log
    auth plain # use auth on for encryptyed authentication
    from whoever@wherever.net
    user whoever@wherever.net
    password xxxxxxxx
    #tls on # both of these are for encrpted authentication too
    #ttls_starttls on # openssl package required
    ------------------------------------

    Configure your MUA to use msmtp instead of sendmail, or whatever the
    default is, if any.

    Tom

    --
    calhobbit (at) | Artificial Intelligence:
    gmail [DOT] com | When the real thing just won't do.


  3. Re: Is there a good console-based POP3/SMTP compatible mail reader?

    plenty900@yahoo.com wrote:
    > Hi folks,
    >
    > I ran man on pico and pine and neither seem to support POP3.
    > Is there a console based mail reader similar to pine that does?
    >
    > Thanks.


    Emacs has several such available. But why, in the name of all the ghods that
    matter, do you want to use POP3?

  4. Re: Is there a good console-based POP3/SMTP compatible mail reader?

    On 2008-02-24, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > plenty900@yahoo.com wrote:
    >> Hi folks,
    >>
    >> I ran man on pico and pine and neither seem to support POP3.
    >> Is there a console based mail reader similar to pine that does?
    >>
    >> Thanks.

    >
    > Emacs has several such available. But why, in the name of all the ghods that
    > matter, do you want to use POP3?


    Probably because that's what his ISP offers.

    As for emacs, that's a world of its own.

    He just wants to retrieve his mail.

    Tom

    --
    calhobbit (at) | Artificial Intelligence:
    gmail [DOT] com | When the real thing just won't do.


  5. Re: Is there a good console-based POP3/SMTP compatible mail reader?

    Tom Newton wrote:
    > On 2008-02-24, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >> plenty900@yahoo.com wrote:
    >>> Hi folks,
    >>>
    >>> I ran man on pico and pine and neither seem to support POP3.
    >>> Is there a console based mail reader similar to pine that does?
    >>>
    >>> Thanks.

    >> Emacs has several such available. But why, in the name of all the ghods that
    >> matter, do you want to use POP3?

    >
    > Probably because that's what his ISP offers.
    >
    > As for emacs, that's a world of its own.
    >
    > He just wants to retrieve his mail.


    Tom, please don't answer someone else's question for them when you know no
    more about it than any of the rest of us. Your response may be correct, but so
    may many other reasons. (Unfamiliarity with IMAP being a big potential one!)

    And by the way, Pine has supported POP3, and supports it better than it does
    IMAP because Mark Crispin, who helped create the IMAP standard, unfortunately
    believes that every file in your home directory of your mail server should be
    considered a mailfile. This causes endless pain with IMAP servers and IMAP
    clients on the same machine, and is reflected in the Pine and wu-imapd
    servers, which also supports POP3 and which Mark helped write.

    So in addition, plenty900, why do you think Pine doesn't support POP3?


  6. Re: Is there a good console-based POP3/SMTP compatible mail reader?

    On 2008-02-24, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > Tom Newton wrote:
    >> On 2008-02-24, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >>> plenty900@yahoo.com wrote:
    >>>> Hi folks,
    >>>>
    >>>> I ran man on pico and pine and neither seem to support POP3.
    >>>> Is there a console based mail reader similar to pine that does?
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks.
    >>> Emacs has several such available. But why, in the name of all the ghods that
    >>> matter, do you want to use POP3?

    >>
    >> Probably because that's what his ISP offers.
    >>
    >> As for emacs, that's a world of its own.
    >>
    >> He just wants to retrieve his mail.

    >
    > Tom, please don't answer someone else's question for them when you know no
    > more about it than any of the rest of us. Your response may be correct, but so
    > may many other reasons. (Unfamiliarity with IMAP being a big potential one!)


    Run your own life.

    What I posted did no harm.

    >
    > And by the way, Pine has supported POP3, and supports it better than it does
    > IMAP because Mark Crispin, who helped create the IMAP standard, unfortunately
    > believes that every file in your home directory of your mail server should be
    > considered a mailfile. This causes endless pain with IMAP servers and IMAP
    > clients on the same machine, and is reflected in the Pine and wu-imapd
    > servers, which also supports POP3 and which Mark helped write.


    POP3 works just fine. Millions of us use it.

    You are both arrogant and ignorant.

    >
    > So in addition, plenty900, why do you think Pine doesn't support POP3?
    >


    So you presume to tell me how to behave, then demonstrate your ignorance,
    and now you think that I'm going to kneel at your feet and beg to
    be enlightened by the mighty guru with the funny name?

    **** off.


    Tom

    --
    calhobbit (at) | Artificial Intelligence:
    gmail [DOT] com | When the real thing just won't do.


  7. Re: Is there a good console-based POP3/SMTP compatible mail reader?


    > > He just wants to retrieve his mail.

    >
    > Tom, please don't answer someone else's question for them when you know no
    > more about it than any of the rest of us.


    He's right. Comcast is my ISP and they only offer POP3.

    Although increasingly I'm annoyed at the amount of spam emails I get
    in my Comcast account, offering me
    - lists of dentists
    - various pharmaceuticals
    - Oprah books
    etc
    ....which they don't filter out.

  8. Re: Is there a good console-based POP3/SMTP compatible mail reader?


    > So in addition, plenty900, why do you think Pine doesn't support POP3?


    I wasn't just the man page: I also went into Setup and there was no
    option for setting
    the POP3 mail server.


  9. Re: Is there a good console-based POP3/SMTP compatible mail reader?

    Tom Newton wrote:
    > On 2008-02-24, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >> Tom Newton wrote:
    >>> On 2008-02-24, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >>>> plenty900@yahoo.com wrote:
    >>>>> Hi folks,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I ran man on pico and pine and neither seem to support POP3.
    >>>>> Is there a console based mail reader similar to pine that does?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Thanks.
    >>>> Emacs has several such available. But why, in the name of all the ghods that
    >>>> matter, do you want to use POP3?
    >>> Probably because that's what his ISP offers.
    >>>
    >>> As for emacs, that's a world of its own.
    >>>
    >>> He just wants to retrieve his mail.

    >> Tom, please don't answer someone else's question for them when you know no
    >> more about it than any of the rest of us. Your response may be correct, but so
    >> may many other reasons. (Unfamiliarity with IMAP being a big potential one!)

    >
    > Run your own life.
    >
    > What I posted did no harm.
    >
    >> And by the way, Pine has supported POP3, and supports it better than it does
    >> IMAP because Mark Crispin, who helped create the IMAP standard, unfortunately
    >> believes that every file in your home directory of your mail server should be
    >> considered a mailfile. This causes endless pain with IMAP servers and IMAP
    >> clients on the same machine, and is reflected in the Pine and wu-imapd
    >> servers, which also supports POP3 and which Mark helped write.

    >
    > POP3 works just fine. Millions of us use it.


    No, it doesn't "work just fine". Every client in the world, by default,
    deletes the mail from the server when you first use it. Preventing this is
    difficult, and it threatens mail stored on the server whenever you activate
    any new POP3 client. This behavior is *NASTY*, and cannot be fixed on the
    server side.

    > You are both arrogant and ignorant.


    Oh, arrogant, yes. On the other hand, I've actually done server migrations
    among the various technologies, and contributed patches (early in their
    development) to Pine and wu-imapd. I also used to host the details for getting
    them both working on SunOS and Solaris when Solaris first came out, including
    the patches to get Pine to play nicely with IMAP on the same server. (Mark
    Crispin's patches don't work and never have, for reasons I can explain if
    you're curious.)

    I also had a long argument with Mark about my hosting a link to SSL patches
    for wu-imapd: he claimed they were copyright violating of the thw washington
    university internal version of wu-imapd, which did include SSL, but they were
    independently developed: he'd never bothered to actually look at the allegedly
    offending code.

    >> So in addition, plenty900, why do you think Pine doesn't support POP3?
    >>

    >
    > So you presume to tell me how to behave, then demonstrate your ignorance,
    > and now you think that I'm going to kneel at your feet and beg to
    > be enlightened by the mighty guru with the funny name?


    You, umm, don't get out into the open source world much, do you?

    If you want to see the oldest stuff I've done with Pine, go look under "Nico
    Garcia-Otero", my name before I got married. I've been at this a *WHILE*, and
    have the experience and detailed knowledge to show it.

  10. Re: Is there a good console-based POP3/SMTP compatible mail reader?

    plenty900@yahoo.com wrote:
    >>> He just wants to retrieve his mail.

    >> Tom, please don't answer someone else's question for them when you know no
    >> more about it than any of the rest of us.

    >
    > He's right. Comcast is my ISP and they only offer POP3.
    >
    > Although increasingly I'm annoyed at the amount of spam emails I get
    > in my Comcast account, offering me
    > - lists of dentists
    > - various pharmaceuticals
    > - Oprah books
    > etc
    > ....which they don't filter out.


    Ahh. Yes, Comcast bites. (I used to use them when I lived in the US, because
    they were the only broadband provider available.) I urged them to switch to
    IMAP, but they didn't cooperate.

    Have you considered simply switching to Gmail? Their spam filters are OK, and
    they've recently added IMAP support (which has issues, but most of which can
    be worked around).

  11. Re: Is there a good console-based POP3/SMTP compatible mail reader?

    plenty900@yahoo.com wrote:
    >> So in addition, plenty900, why do you think Pine doesn't support POP3?

    >
    > I wasn't just the man page: I also went into Setup and there was no
    > option for setting
    > the POP3 mail server.
    >


    Pine documentation has always been.... poorly integrated. Which version of
    Pine are you using? And on what distribution of Linux? Many of them have
    discarded official distribution of Pine due to its freakish licensing.

  12. Re: Is there a good console-based POP3/SMTP compatible mail reader?

    plenty900 wrote:
    > Although increasingly I'm annoyed at the amount of spam emails I get
    > in my Comcast account, offering me
    > - lists of dentists
    > - various pharmaceuticals
    > - Oprah books
    > etc
    > ....which they don't filter out.


    Believe me, you _don't_ want your ISP filtering your mail. Just install
    Spamassassin.

    Nico Kadel-Garcia writes:
    > Have you considered simply switching to Gmail?


    I wouldn't trust my mail to a free service provided by an advertising
    agency, but are there many outfits such as that
    provide mail service at modest prices.
    --
    John Hasler
    john@dhh.gt.org
    Dancing Horse Hill
    Elmwood, WI USA

  13. Re: Is there a good console-based POP3/SMTP compatible mail reader?

    John Hasler wrote:
    > plenty900 wrote:
    >> Although increasingly I'm annoyed at the amount of spam emails I get
    >> in my Comcast account, offering me
    >> - lists of dentists
    >> - various pharmaceuticals
    >> - Oprah books
    >> etc
    >> ....which they don't filter out.

    >
    > Believe me, you _don't_ want your ISP filtering your mail. Just install
    > Spamassassin.
    >
    > Nico Kadel-Garcia writes:
    >> Have you considered simply switching to Gmail?

    >
    > I wouldn't trust my mail to a free service provided by an advertising
    > agency, but are there many outfits such as that
    > provide mail service at modest prices.


    For security, there's a real risk, because as a big corporatino they've
    already demonstrated their willingness to cooperate with nasty national
    governments. But as a service, they're way ahead of most ISP's for reliability
    and failover and availability in odd places: their preferability to Comcast is
    blatant.

  14. Re: Is there a good console-based POP3/SMTP compatible mail reader?

    I wrote:
    > I wouldn't trust my mail to a free service provided by an advertising
    > agency...


    Nico Kadel-Garcia writes:

    > For security, there's a real risk, because as a big corporatino they've
    > already demonstrated their willingness to cooperate with nasty national
    > governments.


    I don't expect anyone to resist court orders, but as I have no security
    concerns that doesn't matter. If I was sending messages which I felt
    needed to be kept secret I'd use encryption. Expecting the Net to be
    secure is silly.

    > But as a service, they're way ahead of most ISP's for reliability and
    > failover...


    Perhaps, but I can't quite see relying on a service from a company with
    which I have no business relationship. They could terminate or drastically
    alter their service tomorrow and would be perfectly within their rights to
    do so.

    > ...and availability in odd places...


    That is of no concern to to me, but even if it was I don't see how Google
    could be available in more places than Newsguy.

    > ...their preferability to Comcast is blatant.


    I have no experience with Comcast.

    In any case, I use CenturyTel and Newsguy only as store and forward nodes:
    I retrieve my mail every five minutes unless my system is down. I just
    want them to send me my mail and forward my outgoing messages: I will do
    my own filtering (one of my objections to Google). I'd run my own server
    if I could.
    --
    John Hasler
    john@dhh.gt.org
    Dancing Horse Hill
    Elmwood, WI USA

  15. Off-topic evaluation of Google, was Re: Is there a good console-basedPOP3/SMTP compatible mail reader?

    John Hasler wrote:
    > I wrote:
    >> I wouldn't trust my mail to a free service provided by an advertising
    >> agency...

    >
    > Nico Kadel-Garcia writes:
    >
    >> For security, there's a real risk, because as a big corporatino they've
    >> already demonstrated their willingness to cooperate with nasty national
    >> governments.

    >
    > I don't expect anyone to resist court orders, but as I have no security
    > concerns that doesn't matter. If I was sending messages which I felt
    > needed to be kept secret I'd use encryption. Expecting the Net to be
    > secure is silly.


    We're not talking about court orders: I'm talking about what the Americans
    would call "prior restraint", their cooperation in the censorship of content
    in China. That's a business decision to accept massive censorship of other
    people's content in order to retain the Chinese market.

    >> But as a service, they're way ahead of most ISP's for reliability and
    >> failover...

    >
    > Perhaps, but I can't quite see relying on a service from a company with
    > which I have no business relationship. They could terminate or drastically
    > alter their service tomorrow and would be perfectly within their rights to
    > do so.


    Oh, I don't rely on them for *secure* content. I use them for content I'm not
    worried about the government of either the US or of even more abusive
    governments entering with only a token effort.

    >> ...and availability in odd places...

    >
    > That is of no concern to to me, but even if it was I don't see how Google
    > could be available in more places than Newsguy.
    >
    >> ...their preferability to Comcast is blatant.

    >
    > I have no experience with Comcast.
    >
    > In any case, I use CenturyTel and Newsguy only as store and forward nodes:
    > I retrieve my mail every five minutes unless my system is down. I just
    > want them to send me my mail and forward my outgoing messages: I will do
    > my own filtering (one of my objections to Google). I'd run my own server
    > if I could.


    I don't care to maintain my own infrastructure to manage easy access to
    primarily public email. They're just too darned good overall, and their
    general services too effective for me to reject them on the bases of their
    cooperation.

  16. Re: Is there a good console-based POP3/SMTP compatible mail reader?

    John Hasler wrote:
    > I wrote:
    >> I wouldn't trust my mail to a free service provided by an advertising
    >> agency...

    >
    > Nico Kadel-Garcia writes:
    >
    >> For security, there's a real risk, because as a big corporatino they've
    >> already demonstrated their willingness to cooperate with nasty national
    >> governments.

    >
    > I don't expect anyone to resist court orders, but as I have no security
    > concerns that doesn't matter. If I was sending messages which I felt
    > needed to be kept secret I'd use encryption. Expecting the Net to be
    > secure is silly.
    >

    I'd certainly want to use POP3 and delete them immediately off the
    server by default.;-)

  17. Re: Is there a good console-based POP3/SMTP compatible mail reader?

    John Hasler wrote:

    > I don't expect anyone to resist court orders, but as I have no security
    > concerns that doesn't matter. If I was sending messages which I felt
    > needed to be kept secret I'd use encryption. Expecting the Net to be
    > secure is silly.
    >

    The government does not require court orders anymore. The fourth amendment
    is completely dead now.

    So you better use encryption, and I suggest you use it on all your e-mail.
    If you use it only on "sensitive" stuff, that would be a flag on your
    sensitive communications. Everyone should encrypt everything.

    But this is something like the weather. Everyone talks about it, but no one
    does anything about it. I have been able to use GnuPG encryption for years,
    but almost no-one I correspond uses it.


    --
    .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
    /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
    /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
    ^^-^^ 10:20:01 up 12 days, 16:31, 1 user, load average: 4.22, 4.22, 4.15

  18. Re: Is there a good console-based POP3/SMTP compatible mail reader?

    On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:23:03 +0000, Jean-David Beyer wrote:

    > John Hasler wrote:
    >
    >> I don't expect anyone to resist court orders, but as I have no security
    >> concerns that doesn't matter. If I was sending messages which I felt
    >> needed to be kept secret I'd use encryption. Expecting the Net to be
    >> secure is silly.
    >>

    > The government does not require court orders anymore.


    "The" government?

    --
    Lionel B

  19. Re: Is there a good console-based POP3/SMTP compatible mail reader?

    The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    > John Hasler wrote:
    >> I wrote:
    >>> I wouldn't trust my mail to a free service provided by an advertising
    >>> agency...

    >>
    >> Nico Kadel-Garcia writes:
    >>
    >>> For security, there's a real risk, because as a big corporatino they've
    >>> already demonstrated their willingness to cooperate with nasty national
    >>> governments.

    >>
    >> I don't expect anyone to resist court orders, but as I have no security
    >> concerns that doesn't matter. If I was sending messages which I felt
    >> needed to be kept secret I'd use encryption. Expecting the Net to be
    >> secure is silly.
    >>

    > I'd certainly want to use POP3 and delete them immediately off the
    > server by default.;-)


    Really? Then no other mail client connecting via POP3 can see those messages,
    and your local mail client is the only storage for all important email.
    That's.... generally a really bad idea. It's even worse if you're one of those
    people who uses their email as their institutional memory and file cabinet.

  20. Re: Is there a good console-based POP3/SMTP compatible mail reader?

    Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    >> John Hasler wrote:
    >>> I wrote:
    >>>> I wouldn't trust my mail to a free service provided by an advertising
    >>>> agency...
    >>>
    >>> Nico Kadel-Garcia writes:
    >>>
    >>>> For security, there's a real risk, because as a big corporatino they've
    >>>> already demonstrated their willingness to cooperate with nasty national
    >>>> governments.
    >>>
    >>> I don't expect anyone to resist court orders, but as I have no security
    >>> concerns that doesn't matter. If I was sending messages which I felt
    >>> needed to be kept secret I'd use encryption. Expecting the Net to be
    >>> secure is silly.
    >>>

    >> I'd certainly want to use POP3 and delete them immediately off the
    >> server by default.;-)

    >
    > Really? Then no other mail client connecting via POP3 can see those
    > messages, and your local mail client is the only storage for all
    > important email. That's.... generally a really bad idea. It's even worse
    > if you're one of those people who uses their email as their
    > institutional memory and file cabinet.


    It is PURELY a matter of whether ior not you are existing in a corporate
    environenment, where the company 'owns' the data and local storage is
    anathema,as you may be hot desking, or whether you are an individual and
    the last thing you want is the ISP 'owning' your data..

    Just trying to make YOU understand that sets of rules derived out of
    YOUR specific experience in ONE specific context are not UNIVERSALLY
    applicable.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast