Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!unido!tub!fauern!fauern!immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de!eckert
From: eckert@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Toerless Eckert)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: Popd support for elm
Message-ID: <609@medusa.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Date: 26 Nov 89 20:03:55 GMT
References: <1989Nov24.021808.26638@DSI.COM>
Organization: IMMD IV, University of Erlangen, W-Germany
Lines: 23

From article <1989Nov24.021808.26638@DSI.COM>, by syd@DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein):
> taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Dave Taylor) writes:
> 
> I guess I should have been more specific.  No one currently in
> the elm development process considered it important enough to put
> it on the wish list.  That users request is the first it has come up.

I am very positive _for_ pop support in elm. In fact i think it
is very useful and necessary. All those discless workstations we configured to
run "rsh sendmail" instead of sendmail and have some spooling
region mounted from some server made me believe that there must
be a better way to solve this ;-)

If you guys of the development team are so kind to implement it,
if enough poeple want it, why not start voting for or against pop ?
I think it's more important than any other new feature that someone
might invent. As a side effect it will make elm's mailbox access code
more portable and cleaner ;-)


Toerless Eckert X.400: <S=eckert;OU=informatik;P=uni-erlangen;A=dbp;C=de>
		RFC822: eckert@informatik.uni-erlangen.de
		UUCP:   {pyramid,unido}!fauern!eckert BITNET: tte@derrze0