FC4 Pine replacement?

[Devon Harding]

Is there a replacement for Pine on FC4?  Alternatives?

[bill perkins]

Devon Harding wrote:
> Is there a replacement for Pine on FC4?  Alternatives?

I use mutt; it's a little different, but most of the functionality that 
I need is there.

[Res]

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005, Devon Harding wrote:
> Is there a replacement for Pine on FC4?  Alternatives?

I always use the source from  ftp://ftp.cac.washington.edu/pine/
just like I use source for a few other things micro$lop err i mean RH 
decide after 10 years they dont want us using :)

However if you go to that site the good guys at cac have even produced an 
rpm for pine users on RH since RH wont :)

[Devon Harding]

Mutt seems better to me.

On 12/26/05, Res  wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005, Devon Harding wrote:
> > Is there a replacement for Pine on FC4?  Alternatives?
>
> I always use the source from  ftp://ftp.cac.washington.edu/pine/
> just like I use source for a few other things micro$lop err i mean RH
> decide after 10 years they dont want us using :)
>
> However if you go to that site the good guys at cac have even produced an
> rpm for pine users on RH since RH wont :)
>
> --
> Cheers
> Res
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 05:16:47PM -0500, Devon Harding wrote:
> Mutt seems better to me.

Now that I have joined others in recommending mutt as a replacement
to pine let me share two problems with mutt:
1. It does not respect the standard that says in a reply everything
after: <CR> -- <CR>
will be deleted in the reply.

2. It it somewhat clumsy to use ipop and imap with mutt.
Otherwise mutt is simpler than pine to use in my opinion.

[Jeffrey Tadlock]

[e-mail] wrote:
> It it somewhat clumsy to use ipop and imap with mutt.
>
> Otherwise mutt is simpler than pine to use in my opinion.

I had been a Pine user for many years and finally made the switch to 
Mutt awhile back.  I really got used to it, but my email needs finally 
needed me to make more use of IMAP.  Mutt's performance seemed to 
diminish greatly when getting it to work with IMAP, so I ended up going 
back to Pine for awhile.  So I am in agreement with the above statement.

I still use mutt on machines that only need access to local email though.

-J

[Justin Zygmont]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005, Res wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005, Devon Harding wrote:
> > Is there a replacement for Pine on FC4?  Alternatives?
>
> However if you go to that site the good guys at cac have even produced an rpm 
> for pine users on RH since RH wont :)

I wish they would change it back to open source

[Tom Diehl]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005, Res wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005, Devon Harding wrote:
> > Is there a replacement for Pine on FC4?  Alternatives?
>
> I always use the source from  ftp://ftp.cac.washington.edu/pine/
> just like I use source for a few other things micro$lop err i mean RH decide 
> after 10 years they dont want us using :)
>
> However if you go to that site the good guys at cac have even produced an rpm 
> for pine users on RH since RH wont :)

You make it sound like this is a Red Hat problem. Just to be clear, lack of
pine is not Red Hat's fault. It is WU's fault. Pine is not open source. If
it was I am sure it would be in the distro or extras.

Oh BTW mutt is NOT even close to being a replacment for pine. Not unless
you have never used pine and just want a text based MUA.

The closest thing I have been able to find to pine is something called cone [1].
So far though I keep going back to pine since that is what my fingers are
trained to use. :-)

Regards,

Tom

[1] http://www.courier-mta.org/cone/index.html

[Jonathan Underwood]

Tom Diehl wrote:
> The closest thing I have been able to find to pine is something called 
> cone [1].
> So far though I keep going back to pine since that is what my fingers are
> trained to use. :-)

As an aside, cone is available from fedora extras, and is quite nice. 
Not as featureful as pine though.

[Paul Smith]

On 12/30/05, Jonathan Underwood  wrote:
> > The closest thing I have been able to find to pine is something called
> > cone [1].
> > So far though I keep going back to pine since that is what my fingers are
> > trained to use. :-)
>
> As an aside, cone is available from fedora extras, and is quite nice.
> Not as featureful as pine though.

Sorry, but what is the point of using pine when one can use
Thunderbird, Evolution, and so on? Has pine got something so special
to make it your elected e-mail client?

Paul

[Jonathan Underwood]

Paul Smith wrote:
> Sorry, but what is the point of using pine when one can use
> Thunderbird, Evolution, and so on? Has pine got something so special
> to make it your elected e-mail client?

When one only has ssh access to a machine and no local Xserver, a 
console based MUA is handy :)

[Les Mikesell]

On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 12:14, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> Paul Smith wrote:
> > Sorry, but what is the point of using pine when one can use
> > Thunderbird, Evolution, and so on? Has pine got something so special
> > to make it your elected e-mail client?
>
> When one only has ssh access to a machine and no local Xserver, a 
> console based MUA is handy :)

Yes but it would be even better to set up an IMAP server on
the machine and let your local MUA display it as another
folder.  You can probably tunnel that through ssh if you
can't set up direct imap-over-ssl.

--
 Les Mikesell
   [e-mail]

[Jonathan Underwood]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> > When one only has ssh access to a machine and no local Xserver, a 
> > console based MUA is handy :)
>
> Yes but it would be even better to set up an IMAP server on
> the machine and let your local MUA display it as another
> folder.  You can probably tunnel that through ssh if you
> can't set up direct imap-over-ssl.

Agreed. But there are many times I find myself in an internet cafe where 
that's not viable - this is the only time i use pine, but it is 
invaluable then.

If the machine wasn't behind a firewall which prevented it (and isn't in 
my control), I would set up an imap server on the machine together with 
a web server and webmail application (squirrelmail or similar) for 
remote mail access.

[Justin Zygmont]

Pine + Cone ...   pine cone :)

I remember there was also elm, it may not have been GPL either though.

[Steven W. Orr]

On Friday, Dec 30th 2005 at 17:53 -0000, quoth Paul Smith:

=>Sorry, but what is the point of using pine when one can use
=>Thunderbird, Evolution, and so on? Has pine got something so special
=>to make it your elected e-mail client?
=>
=>Paul

Great question. I use pine because I do more with it than the basic four 
operation: read, compose, forward and reply. One thing you don't see too 
much is a bounce function. Pine does that.

Pine does a passable job of displaying html as text, and frankly, it's 
rare that I have any desire to see all the pretty colors and fonts. Give 
me the text and let me get on to the next message thank you.

Also, pine provides Roles which I use extensively. Roles allows me to 
customize what my mail looks like depending on who I want to be. It can 
change the From: address, or the .sig file, or just about anything 
depending on how many different hats you wear.

Besides roles, pine has something called Rules which gives you fine 
controls over how different folders will appear when you view it. e.g., in 
most folders wyou want to see who the message is from except in the 
sent-mail folder where you want to see the To: more than the From:

And there really is a lot more stuff available there. Form letters, nice 
addressbook functionality, LDAP support... They did a good job on it.

[John Summerfield]

Paul Smith wrote:
> On 12/30/05, Jonathan Underwood  wrote:
> > > The closest thing I have been able to find to pine is something called
> > > cone [1].
> > > So far though I keep going back to pine since that is what my fingers are
> > > trained to use. :-)
> >
> > As an aside, cone is available from fedora extras, and is quite nice.
> > Not as featureful as pine though.
>
> Sorry, but what is the point of using pine when one can use
> Thunderbird, Evolution, and so on? Has pine got something so special
> to make it your elected e-mail client?

The point of PINE is that it works on a text console. I regularly use 
Mozilla, Thunderbird, PINE Is Not Elm, Mail (OS X), sometimes kmail 
Evolution and Mutt on the same mailboxes.

[Chris Norman]

Evolution crashes a lot... I don't know about thunderbird, is it command 
line?

Cheers,
Chris Norman
<!-- [e-mail] -->
Selling cheap but functional shell accounts.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Smith" 
To: "For users of Fedora Core releases" 
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: FC4 Pine replacement?

On 12/30/05, Jonathan Underwood  wrote:
> > The closest thing I have been able to find to pine is something called
> > cone [1].
> > So far though I keep going back to pine since that is what my fingers 
> > are
> > trained to use. :-)
>
> As an aside, cone is available from fedora extras, and is quite nice.
> Not as featureful as pine though.

Sorry, but what is the point of using pine when one can use
Thunderbird, Evolution, and so on? Has pine got something so special
to make it your elected e-mail client?

Paul

[Paul Smith]

On 12/31/05, Chris Norman  wrote:
> Evolution crashes a lot... I don't know about thunderbird, is it command
> line?
>
> Sorry, but what is the point of using pine when one can use
> Thunderbird, Evolution, and so on? Has pine got something so special
> to make it your elected e-mail client?

No, Thunderbird is not command line driven. Look at:

http://www.mozilla.com/thunderbird/

Paul

[Chris Norman]

In that case, I'd say that Pine is a better option because:
A: It can be used via SSH or Telnet, whatever's your preference.
B: I myself can't see the screen, and when I get a screen reader (speakup), 
the only one which works well is a command line screen reader which will not 
read the GUI. There is a gui screen reader for the GUI but it is unrelyable.

Also, in my experience (and I am by no means a techy or whatever), command 
line programs are a lot more stable than GUI ones.

There are my reasons for prefering Pine.

I'm not being funny? But what have Evolution and Thunderbird got over pine? 
Except that they are GUI?

Cheers,

Chris Norman
<!-- [e-mail] -->
Selling cheap but functional shell accounts.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Smith" 
To: "For users of Fedora Core releases" 
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: FC4 Pine replacement?

On 12/31/05, Chris Norman  wrote:
> Evolution crashes a lot... I don't know about thunderbird, is it command
> line?
>
> Sorry, but what is the point of using pine when one can use
> Thunderbird, Evolution, and so on? Has pine got something so special
> to make it your elected e-mail client?

No, Thunderbird is not command line driven. Look at:

http://www.mozilla.com/thunderbird/

Paul

[Les Mikesell]

On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 20:11, Chris Norman wrote:
> There are my reasons for prefering Pine.
>
> I'm not being funny? But what have Evolution and Thunderbird got over pine? 
> Except that they are GUI?

Evolution has a calendar/schedule that is tied to meeting
requests, but otherwise the extra functionality is a side
effect of the GUI.  You can view the folder list, the
subject line of the current folder, and the body of the
current message all at the same time. You can pop more than
one message open, each in its own window at once. Replies get
their own window so you can review other messages while typing.
You can select multiple messages and drag to folders to
organize them.

[Les Mikesell]

On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 19:50, Chris Norman wrote:
> Evolution crashes a lot... I don't know about thunderbird, is it command 
> line?

I run evolution all day long and it almost never crashes - but I
have it connected to serveral IMAP servers and have very little in
local folders.

--
  Les Mikesell
    [e-mail]

[Sam Varshavchik]

Jonathan Underwood writes:
> Tom Diehl wrote:
> > The closest thing I have been able to find to pine is something called 
> > cone [1].
> > So far though I keep going back to pine since that is what my fingers are
> > trained to use. :-)
>
> As an aside, cone is available from fedora extras, and is quite nice. 
> Not as featureful as pine though.

Such as?

[Jonathan Underwood]

Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> > As an aside, cone is available from fedora extras, and is quite nice. 
> > Not as featureful as pine though.
>
> Such as?

Hi Sam - sorry, wasn't meaning to be critical of your excellent cone 
MUA, which incidentally is what I currently use in preference to pine, 
and I am extremely grateful for your efforts.

However, to answer your question, I haven't found a way to integrate 
cone with an ldap directory, which is possible with pine. Not a big deal 
though.

Jonathan.

[John Summerfield]

Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> Tom Diehl wrote:
> > The closest thing I have been able to find to pine is something called 
> > cone [1].
> > So far though I keep going back to pine since that is what my fingers are
> > trained to use. :-)
>
> As an aside, cone is available from fedora extras, and is quite nice. 
> Not as featureful as pine though.

I downloaded cone from sf,net and used the imbedded spec to build it. 
Whereever I start it (konsole,xterm, vc):

[summer@bilby ~]$ cone
ERROR: Your display appears to be set to the ANSI_X3.4-1968 character set.
This application cannot display this character set.  If this application did
not read the display character set name correctly, the name of the display's
character set name can be manually specified using the CHARSET environment
variable.  Otherwise reconfigure your display to use a supported character
set and try again.
[summer@bilby ~]$

This is not a good start:-(((

I'm sticking with pine ftm.