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.
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$lop err i mean RH decide after 10 years they dont want us using :)
However if you go to that site the good guys at cac have even produced an rpm for pine users on RH since RH wont :)
Mutt seems better to me.
On 12/26/05, Res res@ausics.net wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005, Devon Harding wrote:
Is there a replacement for Pine on FC4? Alternatives?
I always use the source from ftp://ftp.cac.washington.edu/pine/ just like I use source for a few other things micro$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 fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
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
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.
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
akonstam@trinity.edu 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
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.
On 12/30/05, Jonathan Underwood j.underwood@open.ac.uk 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
On 12/31/05, Chris Norman chris.norman4@ntlworld.com 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
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 :)
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 lesmikesell@gmail.com
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 lesmikesell@gmail.com
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.
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.
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.
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?
Paul Smith wrote:
On 12/30/05, Jonathan Underwood j.underwood@open.ac.uk 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.
Evolution crashes a lot... I don't know about thunderbird, is it command line?
Cheers, Chris Norman <!-- chris.norman4@ntlworld.com --> Selling cheap but functional shell accounts. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Smith" phhs80@gmail.com To: "For users of Fedora Core releases" fedora-list@redhat.com Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 9:53 AM Subject: Re: FC4 Pine replacement?
On 12/30/05, Jonathan Underwood j.underwood@open.ac.uk 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
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 <!-- chris.norman4@ntlworld.com --> Selling cheap but functional shell accounts. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Smith" phhs80@gmail.com To: "For users of Fedora Core releases" fedora-list@redhat.com Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 9:58 AM Subject: Re: FC4 Pine replacement?
On 12/31/05, Chris Norman chris.norman4@ntlworld.com 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
Pine + Cone ... pine cone :)
I remember there was also elm, it may not have been GPL either though.
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.
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.
-
akonstam＠trinity.edu -
bill perkins -
Chris Norman -
Devon Harding -
Jeffrey Tadlock -
John Summerfield -
Jonathan Underwood -
Justin Zygmont -
Les Mikesell -
Paul Smith -
Res -
Sam Varshavchik -
Steven W. Orr -
Tom Diehl