On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 03:07:00PM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> I believe those of you who are trying to defend the OP's scheme are also
> failing to understand and even define the actual problem at hand.
That would be everyone else on this list I believe. Because we
realise that the real world is more complex and you don't always
have control over which protocols are available to you and how
much control you have over where you mail is stored.
> In fact nobody has come up with a solid real-world scenario where there
> isn't a much simpler and more obvious solution available, one that can
> only be seen by stepping back and looking at the actual requirements
> from a higher level.
That's only because you're not actually reading them There have been
solid real world scenarios. Here's one:
1) you have mail stored on a system that only allows you POP access,
and for real-world political reasons you can't make them feed the
mail to you.
2) you read your mail on multiple different systems.
3) you don't want to be manually copying messages around with a GUI
client.
Feel free to step back and find a simpler and more obvious solution
for me that doesn't involve wishful thinking that corporate IT could
be convinced to change their policies on your behalf in under 5 years,
or that it's worth your while to fight that fight to come up with a
slightly more technically "pure" solution.
Bron ( and don't get me started on the "don't use a dynamic IP"
argument until you've lived in Australia for a year and paid
a massive premium for a static IP )
----
Cyrus Home Page: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/
Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/twiki
List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/mailing-list.html
