I have been using thunderbird but unfortunately it saves all the messages in one large globular file. I cannot merge e-mails which have been retrieved/sent from different computers into one source. I like the way thunderbird works, otherwise. I need an e-mail client which keeps messages as single items (files) and which can rebuild its indexes of the messages in each folder without painful interventions, so that I can merely rsync the appropriate folder structure into one place for a full backup of all computers. (I have had these features for years using pmmail in OS/2 but I have made the switch and will not go back..but I do miss some things.)
Suggestions please.
On Tuesday 26 September 2006 12:15, R. G. Newbury wrote:
I need an e-mail client which keeps messages as single items (files)
KMail
R. G. Newbury wrote:
I like the way thunderbird works, otherwise. I need an e-mail client which keeps messages as single items (files) and which can rebuild its indexes of the messages in each folder without painful interventions, so that I can merely rsync the appropriate folder structure into one place for a full backup of all computers. (I have had these features for years using pmmail in OS/2 but I have made the switch and will not go back..but I do miss some things.)
Suggestions please.
How do you receive your e-mail?
One option which *would* work, but would be a bit of setting up, would be to use fetchmail plus a mailserver (I'd recommend Postfix) plus procmail to deliver your e-mails into a Maildir format folder (or series of folders), then use Dovecot to make them available via the IMAP protocol to any IMAP-compliant mail client you like (including Thunderbird).
This also makes it very easy to switch between e-mail clients at a whim, and to try out different ones.
And, of course, it means that you can access your e-mail from any of your computers.
I've got this working fine for me.
James.
Recently I switch to sylpheed-claws and in so many ways it great, especially when it comes to setting up the spam filter (never a false positive) and clam antivirus. the handling of html emails is great, it displays them by default as text and only if you really think you need to see the email in all its glory do you even need to use the html plug-in. It has my "vote" for default email client. On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 07:25:24 +0200 Joachim Backes joachim.backes@rhrk.uni-kl.de wrote:
R. G. Newbury wrote:
I have been using thunderbird but unfortunately it saves all the messages in one large globular file. I cannot merge e-mails which have been retrieved/sent from different computers into one source. I like the way thunderbird works, otherwise. I need an e-mail client which keeps messages as single items (files) and which can rebuild its indexes of the messages in each folder without painful interventions, so that I can merely rsync the appropriate folder structure into one place for a full backup of all computers. (I have had these features for years using pmmail in OS/2 but I have made the switch and will not go back..but I do miss some things.)
Suggestions please.
xfmail
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:05:54 -0700, Norm norm@workingtools.ca opined:
Recently I switch to sylpheed-claws and in so many ways it great, especially when it comes to setting up the spam filter (never a false positive) and clam antivirus. the handling of html emails is great, it displays them by default as text and only if you really think you need to see the email in all its glory do you even need to use the html plug-in. It has my "vote" for default email client. On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 07:25:24 +0200 Joachim Backes joachim.backes@rhrk.uni-kl.de wrote:
Love SC - best client I have ever used; Light, fast and infinitely configurable. BTW, you can choose either the Dillo or GTKhtml plugin. The inventor of html email should be shot anyway.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Cary Hart wrote:
Love SC - best client I have ever used; Light, fast and infinitely configurable.
That sounds like mutt. ;-)
BTW, you can choose either the Dillo or GTKhtml plugin. The inventor of html email should be shot anyway.
Better than choosing which engine to render it in, have it dumped to text. Using mutt, I have w3m dump any all-html messages to text before viewing. I never miss seeing someone's large red font or graphical .sig.
- -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ====================================================================== That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. -- Aldous Huxley Collected Essays, 1959
On 9/29/06, Todd Zullinger tmz@pobox.com wrote:
before viewing. I never miss seeing someone's large red font or graphical .sig.
Yet we all have to endure your although very secure 19 line text siganture...
;-)
Honestly, all the html email haters need to get over it, it's not 1991 any more, we have hard drive space, we have fast cpu's, and we dont have to keep every email we recieve (thank the spamers for that revelation!)
I get what your saying, ugly fonts and weird colours and dancing monkeys, but it's not worth moaning about. Delete is your friend...
PS, check out my large and over inflated sig Todd!!!
Rob Brown-Bayliss wrote:
On 9/29/06, Todd Zullinger tmz@pobox.com wrote:
before viewing. I never miss seeing someone's large red font or graphical .sig.
Yet we all have to endure your although very secure 19 line text siganture...
;-)
Honestly, all the html email haters need to get over it, it's not 1991 any more, we have hard drive space, we have fast cpu's, and we dont have to keep every email we recieve (thank the spamers for that revelation!)
I get what your saying, ugly fonts and weird colours and dancing monkeys, but it's not worth moaning about. Delete is your friend...
Not everyone has cheap bandwidth though. For the vast majority of emails, HTML is simply unnecessary.
Paul.
On Fri, September 29, 2006 1:38 am, Paul Howarth wrote:
Rob Brown-Bayliss wrote:
On 9/29/06, Todd Zullinger tmz@pobox.com wrote:
before viewing. I never miss seeing someone's large red font or graphical .sig.
Yet we all have to endure your although very secure 19 line text siganture...
;-)
Honestly, all the html email haters need to get over it, it's not 1991 any more, we have hard drive space, we have fast cpu's, and we dont have to keep every email we recieve (thank the spamers for that revelation!)
I get what your saying, ugly fonts and weird colours and dancing monkeys, but it's not worth moaning about. Delete is your friend...
Not everyone has cheap bandwidth though. For the vast majority of emails, HTML is simply unnecessary.
Paul.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
When the majority of emails don't even use html features other than a defualt font, I feel that html emails are just a waste. Many people leave the defaultemail settings to html and don't take advantage and in many cases don't even know how to take advanatage of the html features. If more would go just use text emails it would have the additonal effect of making spam filtes easier to use and reduce the effecyivness of one of the spammer tools to get past spam filters
On Friday 29 September 2006 09:09, Rob Brown-Bayliss wrote:
On 9/29/06, Todd Zullinger tmz@pobox.com wrote:
before viewing. I never miss seeing someone's large red font or graphical .sig.
Yet we all have to endure your although very secure 19 line text siganture...
;-)
Do you mean the gpg signature? If so, yes. Unlike html this is a security feature not a liability.
Honestly, all the html email haters need to get over it, it's not 1991 any more, we have hard drive space, we have fast cpu's, and we dont have to keep every email we recieve (thank the spamers for that revelation!)
I get what your saying, ugly fonts and weird colours and dancing monkeys, but it's not worth moaning about. Delete is your friend...
You prefer html - that is your privilege. However many of us prefer not to. More important is the fact that most mailing lists specifically ask you *not* to use html. Do as you like for private mail, but please respect the wishes of mailing lists.
Anne
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 10:13 +0100, Anne Wilson wrote:
Yet we all have to endure your although very secure 19 line text siganture...
;-)
Do you mean the gpg signature? If so, yes. Unlike html this is a security feature not a liability.
How much of a feature is having your mail program do some extra work to report this - on the message I'm replying to:
The signature of this message cannot be verified, it may have been altered in transit.
gpg: armor header: Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) gpg: Signature made Fri 29 Sep 2006 04:13:56 AM CDT using DSA key ID BFE7357F gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
It doesn't give me any warm fuzzies...
On Friday 29 September 2006 19:38, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 10:13 +0100, Anne Wilson wrote:
Yet we all have to endure your although very secure 19 line text siganture...
;-)
Do you mean the gpg signature? If so, yes. Unlike html this is a security feature not a liability.
How much of a feature is having your mail program do some extra work to report this - on the message I'm replying to:
The signature of this message cannot be verified, it may have been altered in transit.
gpg: armor header: Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) gpg: Signature made Fri 29 Sep 2006 04:13:56 AM CDT using DSA key ID BFE7357F gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
It doesn't give me any warm fuzzies...
Today 10:13:51 Message was signed by cannewilson@tiscali.co.uk (Key ID: 0x90502F32BFE7357F). The signature is valid and the key is ultimately trusted.
I don't know why you can't find it - it's on several keyservers to my knowledge.
Anne
Around 09:02pm on Friday, September 29, 2006 (UK time), Anne Wilson scrawled:
I don't know why you can't find it - it's on several keyservers to my knowledge.
I can vouch for that - I imported it without any problem.
Steve
On Fri September 29 2006 4:02 pm, Anne Wilson wrote:
I don't know why you can't find it - it's on several keyservers to my knowledge.
FYI - I have no strong views on the subject under debate, but, I also get
Message was signed on 9.29.2006 4:02 pm with unknown key 0x90502F32BFE7357F. The validity of the signature cannot be verified. Status: No public key to verify the signature
My mail client is set to automatically download keys and sigs...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Claude Jones wrote:
On Fri September 29 2006 4:02 pm, Anne Wilson wrote:
I don't know why you can't find it - it's on several keyservers to my knowledge.
FYI - I have no strong views on the subject under debate, but, I also get
Message was signed on 9.29.2006 4:02 pm with unknown key 0x90502F32BFE7357F. The validity of the signature cannot be verified. Status: No public key to verify the signature
My mail client is set to automatically download keys and sigs...
How many keyservers do you have Kmail scan? All kerservers claim to have all keys. Most do not although they are supposed to share them. One of the most reliable keyservers I have found is this one.
http://keyserver.veridis.com:11371/index.html
Anne's key is there, as well as on several others. - -- David
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 13:56 -0700, David Boles wrote:
How many keyservers do you have Kmail scan? All kerservers claim to have all keys. Most do not although they are supposed to share them. One of the most reliable keyservers I have found is this one.
I have never had occasion to use a key. If there enough benefit in having one that I should look into getting one? I think I may have had one way back when, but never used it for anything. Thanx for any replies, Ric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ric Moore wrote:
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 13:56 -0700, David Boles wrote:
How many keyservers do you have Kmail scan? All kerservers claim to have all keys. Most do not although they are supposed to share them. One of the most reliable keyservers I have found is this one.
I have never had occasion to use a key. If there enough benefit in having one that I should look into getting one? I think I may have had one way back when, but never used it for anything. Thanx for any replies, Ric
This message will be signed with my key. If you were using GnuPG, and if you had my public key you would know, for sure, that I wrote this and not the Rich Man from Nigeria with all the money. ;-)
It works the same way as the gpg-key that checks your downloads to make sure that they are 'real', and who signed the RPMs, and not spoofs.
If you had a key and I had your public key, if we, for example, chose to we could send emails to each other that are encrypted and could only be read by you and me. Not to the list(s), of course. Private emails. You could do that with others, if they had keys and you chose to do so.
You are aware that all of the servers that forward your email, listed in the headers, keep copies that can be read by anyone? At least they used to do that.
- -- David
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 15:45 -0700, David Boles wrote:
It works the same way as the gpg-key that checks your downloads to make sure that they are 'real', and who signed the RPMs, and not spoofs.
If you had a key and I had your public key, if we, for example, chose to we could send emails to each other that are encrypted and could only be read by you and me. Not to the list(s), of course. Private emails. You could do that with others, if they had keys and you chose to do so.
You are aware that all of the servers that forward your email, listed in the headers, keep copies that can be read by anyone? At least they used to do that.
Ha! Google for wayward4now They sure keep track of alot of my crap! Try googling on you for grins at Cocktail parties. Hey "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is coming on AMC now. I need a life. Ric
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 20:10 -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 15:45 -0700, David Boles wrote:
It works the same way as the gpg-key that checks your downloads to make sure that they are 'real', and who signed the RPMs, and not spoofs.
If you had a key and I had your public key, if we, for example, chose to we could send emails to each other that are encrypted and could only be read by you and me. Not to the list(s), of course. Private emails. You could do that with others, if they had keys and you chose to do so.
You are aware that all of the servers that forward your email, listed in the headers, keep copies that can be read by anyone? At least they used to do that.
Ha! Google for wayward4now They sure keep track of alot of my crap! Try googling on you for grins at Cocktail parties. Hey "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is coming on AMC now. I need a life. Ric
Gort! Klaatu berrata nickto!
(and you think YOU need a life?!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Senior Systems Engineer rstevens@vitalstream.com - - VitalStream, Inc. http://www.vitalstream.com - - - - When in doubt, mumble. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 17:43 -0700, Rick Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 20:10 -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 15:45 -0700, David Boles wrote:
It works the same way as the gpg-key that checks your downloads to make sure that they are 'real', and who signed the RPMs, and not spoofs.
If you had a key and I had your public key, if we, for example, chose to we could send emails to each other that are encrypted and could only be read by you and me. Not to the list(s), of course. Private emails. You could do that with others, if they had keys and you chose to do so.
You are aware that all of the servers that forward your email, listed in the headers, keep copies that can be read by anyone? At least they used to do that.
Ha! Google for wayward4now They sure keep track of alot of my crap! Try googling on you for grins at Cocktail parties. Hey "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is coming on AMC now. I need a life. Ric
Gort! Klaatu berrata nickto!
(and you think YOU need a life?!)
Lord, you know it by heart. OK, you win. You have even less of a life than me! To make it worse, I'm replying to you on a Linux list at 9PM on a Friday night and watching Gort stomp around, while the Earthlings scatter like chickens. Great screaming, I give those ladies a solid 9. Now I have less life than you, unless you go into devel on a ScreamOmeter. Make it command line and you really win. Oh God, there goes an Edsel. Kill me now. "Yes sir General, that's where he's staying." Someone kill that snitch, first. <sighs> Ric
On Friday 29 September 2006 23:13, Ric Moore wrote:
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 13:56 -0700, David Boles wrote:
How many keyservers do you have Kmail scan? All kerservers claim to have all keys. Most do not although they are supposed to share them. One of the most reliable keyservers I have found is this one.
I have never had occasion to use a key. If there enough benefit in having one that I should look into getting one? I think I may have had one way back when, but never used it for anything. Thanx for any replies, Ric
Ric, I started using a key when I started getting complaints from people that I was sending them spam. I tried telling them about spoofing, and telling them how to read the headers to check that it originated from my address, but that was too complex for most of them. Spammers don't have my key, so can't sign the message.
Anne
On Sat, 2006-09-30 at 10:14 +0100, Anne Wilson wrote:
On Friday 29 September 2006 23:13, Ric Moore wrote:
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 13:56 -0700, David Boles wrote:
How many keyservers do you have Kmail scan? All kerservers claim to have all keys. Most do not although they are supposed to share them. One of the most reliable keyservers I have found is this one.
I have never had occasion to use a key. If there enough benefit in having one that I should look into getting one? I think I may have had one way back when, but never used it for anything. Thanx for any replies, Ric
Ric, I started using a key when I started getting complaints from people that I was sending them spam. I tried telling them about spoofing, and telling them how to read the headers to check that it originated from my address, but that was too complex for most of them. Spammers don't have my key, so can't sign the message.
Can they still spoof you though, couldn't they? I wonder if any of my old keys still exist or is there a statute of limitations? How would I check and/or are they assigned to an old email box? Or to me, personally? If I don't, how do I get a key? Ric
On Saturday 30 September 2006 19:14, Ric Moore wrote:
Can they still spoof you though, couldn't they?
Yes, they can, but they can't sign the message with my key. If it is from this address (and this is the address that gets almost all my spam) and it doesn't have a gpg signature, then it's almost certainly not from me. The only times I make exceptions are when I send to automated recipients, such as when setting mailing list requirements.
I wonder if any of my old keys still exist or is there a statute of limitations?
That would depend on whether you limited the key when you made it.
How would I check and/or are they assigned to an old email box? Or to me, personally?
I'm not sure how you can check that, if you don't have any info about the keys you have used in the past. Perhaps someone else can help.
If I don't, how do I get a key? Ric
'man gpg' :-) I googled for and found an excellent tutorial on installing gpg and getting it to work with KMail. I know kmail is not your preferred mailer, but the principles would be the same. I don't have the url, but the article was entitled "Using OpenPGP and PGP/MIME with KMail". There's a fair bit of info in the gpg readme files, too. I have to say that Fedora was pretty good at picking up not only the dependencies, but files like pinentry that are needed for convenient use.
Anne
On Sat, 2006-09-30 at 19:22 +0100, Anne Wilson wrote:
On Saturday 30 September 2006 19:14, Ric Moore wrote:
If I don't, how do I get a key? Ric
'man gpg' :-) I googled for and found an excellent tutorial on installing gpg and getting it to work with KMail. I know kmail is not your preferred mailer, but the principles would be the same. I don't have the url, but the article was entitled "Using OpenPGP and PGP/MIME with KMail". There's a fair bit of info in the gpg readme files, too. I have to say that Fedora was pretty good at picking up not only the dependencies, but files like pinentry that are needed for convenient use.
Anne, when I get your email from this list there is a bottom brownish bar that sez that your key is invalid. Is that because it passes through the list server? It's got a boxing glove looking icon with an X in the knuckles area. FYI, Ric
p/s thanks a bunch for replying. Why is there not more linuxchix in here posting? This place could use a little more class!! <chuckles> Ric
On Sat, 2006-09-30 at 19:55 -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
Anne, when I get your email from this list there is a bottom brownish bar that sez that your key is invalid. Is that because it passes through the list server? It's got a boxing glove looking icon with an X in the knuckles area. FYI, Ric
That'd be because you don't have Evolution/gpg set up to automatically get keys if it doesn't already have them. The check is not just that the message has been signed, but that the key is the correct one. The way it does that is to check against the keys already in your possession, and/or fetching those that are not.
Think of it like a cop picking up what he thinks is a burglar about to break into a house. He wouldn't just ask the guy if he had a key to get in the door, and to see that he has a key in his hand. He'd ask him to put the key in the lock and prove that it was the right key.
This is where the "proof" comes in. Anybody can create a key in someone else's name, but it will be a *different* key. It won't match, and you can tell them apart. For further proof, keys can be countersigned by other users, somewhere along the line one of the keys should be signed by someone that you personally know, or some authority that you would have trusted to check that the person really was who they say they are.
Therein lay the letdown with pgp implementations: Most keys aren't countersigned by someone else, or by someone else that you'd rely on. So while you'd be sure that you were conversing with the same person as last time, you don't know if they claim that they are who they say they are. And to be honest, considering how many people do set up their PCs, you don't even know that. Too many people will set up their PCs so that they don't have to provide a passphrase, and anybody using that box can post as them.
On Sunday 01 October 2006 00:55, Ric Moore wrote:
Anne, when I get your email from this list there is a bottom brownish bar that sez that your key is invalid. Is that because it passes through the list server? It's got a boxing glove looking icon with an X in the knuckles area. FYI, Ric
Tim has already answered most of this. Occasionally I see a red bar in kmail on someone's message, when passing it through the list (or somewhere else along the way) has corrupted something. I know that it was once found that sometimes an additional EOL gets added (that was not on this list), but usually it's because either you aren't set up to collect the keys automatically, or the keyserver you are using doesn't have the key. In theory an uploaded key is propagated to all servers, but in practice they sometimes are missed on some servers.
As Tim said, the weakness is in getting your key countersigned. You know when you see my key that it came from me, the entity that is registered on the fedora-list, but you don't know whether I am really who I say I am or Donald Duck. I tried to get the local LUG to have a key-signing session, but there was no interest. For signing to be valid the person needs to know you personally or see incontroversial proof, such as a passport.
Anne
On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 10:48 +0100, Anne Wilson wrote:
Occasionally I see a red bar in kmail on someone's message, when passing it through the list (or somewhere else along the way) has corrupted something. I know that it was once found that sometimes an additional EOL gets added (that was not on this list), but usually it's because either you aren't set up to collect the keys automatically, or the keyserver you are using doesn't have the key.
which is going back to the original purpose for signing the message: That a message did come from, and didn't get altered in transit. Whether due to technical goofs, or tampering. It's too easy to be too forgiving about faults in checking signatures. We shouldn't be, though. It's useless if you're not vigilant.
If you're warned, you need to at least think about the warning, if not actually do something about it. On here, it generally doesn't matter too much. We're not dealing with money, or important personal issues. Though issues of computer security do matter. I see your message as having a "valid signature," but with the warning that it "cannot verify sender" (it's not countersigned by a trusted third party). Where I do take issue with that situation is when we get messages on this list, or the announce list, about an update to a package with a similar warning about the message's PGP signature. I do think that programmers should put some effort into having their signatures countersigned by someone at Red Hat that we could put some PGP trust in.
On Sat, 2006-09-30 at 14:14 -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
Can they still spoof you though, couldn't they?
But you can check against that.
I wonder if any of my old keys still exist or is there a statute of limitations?
You can have expiry dates on keys. You can still decode messages with old keys, but the programs stop you from encoding with them.
How would I check and/or are they assigned to an old email box? Or to me, personally?
Keys are usually associated with an e-mail address. Though PGP can be used to encode a file, without that requirement. If you'd published your keys on a server, you can query the servers for your keys. You'll only get the public half of them, of course, which is only of any good for decoding file meant for someone to decode.
If I don't, how do I get a key?
You make your own keys.
Sounds like you want to google around for "How does PGP work?"
On 9/29/06, Rob Brown-Bayliss uncertain.genius@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/29/06, Todd Zullinger tmz@pobox.com wrote:
before viewing. I never miss seeing someone's large red font or graphical .sig.
Yet we all have to endure your although very secure 19 line text siganture...
;-)
Haha, could not agree more! All those people complaining about html email are allways sending signed messages to public lists where it is guarenteed that 99.9% of the receivers do not have a signed key to verify the sender. Please remove signatures longer than two lines before complaining about html email.
Honestly, all the html email haters need to get over it, it's not 1991 any more, we have hard drive space, we have fast cpu's, and we dont have to keep every email we recieve (thank the spamers for that revelation!)
I get what your saying, ugly fonts and weird colours and dancing monkeys, but it's not worth moaning about. Delete is your friend...
PS, check out my large and over inflated sig Todd!!!
-- Rob
On Friday 29 September 2006 18:29, Trond Danielsen wrote:
<snip>
Please remove signatures longer than two lines before complaining about html email.
If messages arrive as a multipart I never see the html, as kmail politely shows me the text portion only. If a message arrives as straight html I ignore it. I can't waste my time ploughing through all the rubbish to find what the question was. Now the fact that I ignore it is of little consequence - my knowledge level is not that great. What *is* of consequence however is that many people with much higher levels of knowledge do the same. This surely is the most important reason, apart from the politeness of respecting the list's wishes, for not using html. You may not get an answer from the person who has the vital information.
-- Rob
-- Trond Danielsen
And please, learn to snip. Multiple signatures like this can cause problems with some mail readers.
Anne
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Rob Brown-Bayliss wrote:
On 9/29/06, Todd Zullinger tmz@pobox.com wrote:
before viewing. I never miss seeing someone's large red font or graphical .sig.
Yet we all have to endure your although very secure 19 line text siganture...
;-)
You don't have to endure it. Strip it out using procmail if you find it useless. I would use the more elegant PGP/MIME style of PGP signatures, but the support for that years-old-RFC is sadly lacking in too many mail clients and list software (mailman just fixed a bug in that area not more than a few months ago). So I use the uglier (to those without any PGP software installed) inline style.
Honestly, all the html email haters need to get over it, it's not 1991 any more, we have hard drive space, we have fast cpu's, and we dont have to keep every email we recieve (thank the spamers for that revelation!)
I'd still argue that HTML mail is almost always pointless. But that's just my opinion (and I realize some would say the same for PGP sigs).
In the end, I just dump HTML to text and go about my day. I don't spend much time moaning about HTML mail, I've solved it as well as I can on my end and the only time I mention it to others is to explain how to strip it out or to point out to those sending HTML that this lists' guidelines ask you not to send.
- -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ====================================================================== The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it. -- George Bernard Shaw
R. G. Newbury wrote:
I have been using thunderbird but unfortunately it saves all the messages in one large globular file. I cannot merge e-mails which have been retrieved/sent from different computers into one source. I like the way thunderbird works, otherwise. I need an e-mail client which keeps messages as single items (files) and which can rebuild its indexes of the messages in each folder without painful interventions, so that I can merely rsync the appropriate folder structure into one place for a full backup of all computers. (I have had these features for years using pmmail in OS/2 but I have made the switch and will not go back..but I do miss some things.)
Suggestions please.
xfmail