wilber@alice.UUCP (06/24/88)
kevin@kosman.UUCP writes: >However, as an ex-mailx-from-the-store user, I can recommend mush, which >was recently posted to the comp.sources.somethingorother group. It has >stuff in it for tailoring to the UNIX PC. While still imperfect, it is >a better tool with its bugs than mailx is in its perfection. Right now I'm still using ye olde crufty standard-issue-out-of-the-box mail, but I read and write mail with Emac's rmail. I would like to know what advantages, if any, there are to using one of mailx, smail, mush, etc., for someone who uses Emacs. >Besides, you get source, and you can help Dan Heller find out what is wrong >with the curses interface on the UNIX PC. (I have not had the time and >inclination). Dan only has BSD unix, so has some trouble keeping the >thing current on SYSV boxes. With help, this could become just as good >for us. Here's a Curses bug I found early on, and it may be the source of some problems people have been having with 3b1 Curses. Mvcur() simply doesn't work when you're in noecho mode. (In fact, it doesn't seem to work if the program was *ever* in noecho mode, even if it's currently in echo mode.) Mvcur isn't used very much but if you want to implement a low level "redraw screen" operation and be able to reset the cursor to the right place it comes in handy. On the 3b1 you just can't use it. I discovered this bug during that fleeting moment in time when everything was still under warranty. I called the hotline, sent them a little one page program that exhibits the bug, and eventually managed to convince them that it really is a bug. They assured me that it would probably never get fixed. Love those software "warrantees". >... I use mush and smail (both are supplied with sources). What are the advantages of using both of these together? Bob Wilber Work: UUCP: {allegra, mtune, ihnp4}!gauss!wilber ARPA: wilber@research.att.com Home: UUCP: {allegra, mtune, ihnp4}!gauss!heaven!wilber ARPA: heaven!wilber%gauss@att.arpa
daveb@llama.rtech.UUCP (Dave Brower) (06/25/88)
In article <8014@alice.UUCP> wilber@alice.UUCP writes: >Right now I'm still using ye olde crufty standard-issue-out-of-the-box mail, >but I read and write mail with Emac's rmail. I would like to know what >advantages, if any, there are to using one of mailx, smail, mush, etc., for >someone who uses Emacs. Emacs mail is fine. Selection of a mail interface is a religious war, but mailx, elm, mush and emacs are all lightyears ahead of SV /bin/mail. If you are comfortable with one, then you don't really need any of the others. You *do* want to install smail, however. It is not a user interface, but a smarter delivery agent. The main thing it does is map user@place to a bang path (somewhere!elsewhere!place!user) for delivery by uucp. It also handles forwarding and aliasing, so you can, for instance, have mail for root, postmaster, daemon, uucp and news turn up in your mailbox instead of having to su to a bunch of different users. -dB {amdahl, cpsc6a, mtxinu, sun, hoptoad}!rtech!daveb daveb@rtech.com <- FINALLY!
kevin@kosman.UUCP (Kevin O'Gorman) (06/25/88)
In article <8014@alice.UUCP> wilber@alice.UUCP writes: >kevin@kosman.UUCP writes: >>However, as an ex-mailx-from-the-store user, I can recommend mush, which >>was recently posted to the comp.sources.somethingorother group. It has >>stuff in it for tailoring to the UNIX PC. While still imperfect, it is >>a better tool with its bugs than mailx is in its perfection. > >Right now I'm still using ye olde crufty standard-issue-out-of-the-box mail, >but I read and write mail with Emac's rmail. I would like to know what >advantages, if any, there are to using one of mailx, smail, mush, etc., for >someone who uses Emacs. Sorry, can't really help with this. Emacs is more than I want to try to really learn. I once in a while edit with it, but I'm really a vi user. Thus, I cannot make comparisons. Mush is a "user agent" -- i.e. it presents the user interface for dealing with mail. Mush has many options and commands, most of which you set once, or set up in your .mushrc file, and forget about. It presents the incoming mail, allows you to do things to the letters or groups of letters, (like sort according to sender, save everything from mike, read some of it, print it, etc). It allows you to make replies, it aliases (i.e. you say "To: users" and the mail goes to all of them), it appends your signature (which may depend on the recipient), etc. Mailx is another user agent, with similar but less elaborate features. It is tty oriented, as opposed to the mush curses-style interface. Smail is an intermediary between the user agent and your favorite transport mechanism. It can handle coexisting with sendmail, but I use it without. It is useful in the uucp world because it reads a pathalias database and creates an appropriate route for you. It can be used to reroute mail based on the uucp maps. I use it mostly because it can understand domain addresses and get mail going right (thus, I can have To: mml@magnus, and it will get there). This last is useful especially when dealing with other people's return addresses, or with addresses gleaned from net news. It calls sendmail, the erstwhile /bin/mail, or uux depending on the destination and the configuration. You can use it directly, or you can have your user agent call it. Used directly, its user interface is like the original /bin/mail. > >> [ more puffery from me, and a mention of the one problem I knew of, >> which has since been removed (not exactly solved) ] > > [description of curses bug which is not the problem] > >>... I use mush and smail (both are supplied with sources). > >What are the advantages of using both of these together? As above, they are different animals, and can be used separately or together according to the need.
cks@ziebmef.uucp (Chris Siebenmann) (06/27/88)
In article <8014@alice.UUCP> wilber@alice.UUCP writes: ... >Right now I'm still using ye olde crufty standard-issue-out-of-the-box mail, >but I read and write mail with Emac's rmail. I would like to know what >advantages, if any, there are to using one of mailx, smail, mush, etc., for >someone who uses Emacs. For someone already using Emac's rmail, mailx and mush are unnecessary, but smail is still useful. Mailx, mush, and Emac's rmail are mail user agents (things people use to deal with mail), while smail is a mail delivery agent (something programs use to route and deliver mail). The big things you get by running smail is the ability to handle '@'-style addresses sensibly and generate mail messages that conform to the applicable standards (RFC 822?). -- You're a prisoner of the dark sky/The propeller blades are still And the evil eye of the hurricane's/Coming in for the kill Chris Siebenmann uunet!utgpu!{ontmoh!moore,ncrcan}!ziebmef!cks cks@ziebmef.UUCP or .....!utgpu!{,ontmoh!,ncrcan!brambo!}cks