Subject: Re: PINE loops on zero mail check interval

From: Dave Horsfall <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:05:38 +1000 (EST)

On Sat, 29 May 1999, Edward M Greshko wrote:

> I run pine in much the same way that you do.  However, I don't allow my
> INBOX to grow as large as you have.

Now you know why it's so large - it can be ages before I can respond :-)

> If you frequently allow your INBOX to get this large you may wish to
> consider switching to a different INBOX format.  The mbx format is
> probably best for your situation.  If you pickup the imap distribution
> there are 2 files in the docs directory which explain the different
> formats available and their merits.

Thanks for the tip.  I guess that means I have to use IMAP (the
mail server is also the local machine).

> You should also consider upgrading to Solaris7 and then doing a recompile
> on pine.  Having done so, the binary itself reduces in size from about
> 8Meg to 4Meg.

Yes, I will eventually, but only after all our clients in turn have
been upgraded.

-- 
Dave Horsfall VK2KFU  [email-masked]  Ph: +61 2 9978-7493 Fx: +61 2 9978-7422
Geac Computers P/L (FGH Division) 2/57 Christie St, St Leonards 2065, Australia

---

From: Aubrey Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 06:29:56 -0400 (EDT)

How do I get off this list?

---

From: "Daniel Sands" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 08:45:02 -0600

Check the page that you used to join the list.

---

From: Terry Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 08:08:55 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)

> mail server is also the local machine).

Negative.  Pine understands the same set of mailbox formats as UW's imapd.
(They are both built on top of the same messaging libraries.)  If your
needs grow to require multiple machines, we would encourage use of IMAP,
but as long as Pine users and the mail store are on the same machine, IMAP
is not required, even when mbx is the chosen format.  I believe there are
some words in the distribution about how to get the delivery program
(tmail/dmail), the mail servers (imapd, ipopd), and Pine all to agree to
create new folders in mbx format.  There is also a utility in the
distribution for converting amongst formats (mbxcvt).

-teg

---

From: David Giannelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:33:10 -0400 (EDT)

> > How do I get off this list?

To signoff from the list, email to [email-masked] with the following request:

		signoff PINE-ANNOUNCE
or
		unsubscribe PINE-ANNOUNCE

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: 
 http://www.washington.edu/pine/pine-info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Scott Leibrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 09:44:27 -0700 (PDT)

Shouldn't that be:
unsubscibe pine-info
?  Pine-announce is a much more limited mailing list only for
announcements, not for general discussions like we always have here.

-- 
Scott Leibrand
[email-masked]
How to contact me:
http://students.washington.edu/leibrand/howtocontactme.html
* RCW 19.190 notice: This email address is located in Washington State. *
* Unsolicited commercial email may be billed $500 per message.          *

---

From: Dave Horsfall <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 15:09:12 +1000 (EST)

> Negative.  Pine understands the same set of mailbox formats as UW's imapd.

Better still - thanks!

PS: Your messages are being trapped by my spam-filter because of the
illegal timezone in the Date: header.  You might want to fix that; it
currently looks like:

Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 08:08:55 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)

"Pacific Daylight Time" is wrong, and is the signature of some spam-ware.

---

From: Jessica Rasku <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 15:00:24 -0700 (PDT)

> "Pacific Daylight Time" is wrong, and is the signature of some spam-ware.

	I've not noticed this sort of signature before.  Oddly, your
message seems to be coming with a time signature that *I* don't consider
``correct''.  It may very well be, which it looks like (EST I associate
with ``Eastern Standard Time''), intrestingly enough, the zoneinfo files
seem to agree with your ussage.  Which indicates that the three letter
code is rather ambiguous.

							Jessica

-- 
Jessica Rasku, Box 270, Rossland, B.C., V0G 1Y0, (250) 362-5701, 
LinuxBox: (250) 362-9668.

List manager: [email-masked] 
     send command help ---- To get help with majordomo
               or lists ---- To get a list of all lists on server.

WWW: <http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Andes/8749>

---

From: "Ed Greshko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 07:46:12 +0800

Dave,

> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 08:08:55 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)

May I suggest a little light reading for you and Jessica?  It is called RFC822.
Here is an excerpt from it:

Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages

     5.  DATE AND TIME SPECIFICATION

     5.1.  SYNTAX

     date-time   =  [ day "," ] date time        ; dd mm yy
                                                 ;  hh:mm:ss zzz

     day         =  "Mon"  / "Tue" /  "Wed"  / "Thu"
                 /  "Fri"  / "Sat" /  "Sun"

     date        =  1*2DIGIT month 2DIGIT        ; day month year
                                                 ;  e.g. 20 Jun 82

     month       =  "Jan"  /  "Feb" /  "Mar"  /  "Apr"
                 /  "May"  /  "Jun" /  "Jul"  /  "Aug"
                 /  "Sep"  /  "Oct" /  "Nov"  /  "Dec"

     time        =  hour zone                    ; ANSI and Military

     hour        =  2DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT [":" 2DIGIT]
                                                 ; 00:00:00 - 23:59:59

     zone        =  "UT"  / "GMT"                ; Universal Time
                                                 ; North American : UT
                 /  "EST" / "EDT"                ;  Eastern:  - 5/ - 4
                 /  "CST" / "CDT"                ;  Central:  - 6/ - 5
                 /  "MST" / "MDT"                ;  Mountain: - 7/ - 6
                 /  "PST" / "PDT"                ;  Pacific:  - 8/ - 7
                 /  1ALPHA                       ; Military: Z = UT;
                                                 ;  A:-1; (J not used)
                                                 ;  M:-12; N:+1; Y:+12
                 / ( ("+" / "-") 4DIGIT )        ; Local differential
                                                 ;  hours+min. (HHMM)

You will note that in the case above the zone is "-0700".  Jessica should note
that in your case the zone is "+1000".  In both case the text enclosed in "("
and ")" is comment only.

Regareds,
Ed

---

From: Jessica Rasku <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 19:07:13 -0700 (PDT)

> > Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 08:08:55 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
                     ^^^^
 
> May I suggest a little light reading for you and Jessica?  It is
> called RFC822. Here is an excerpt from it:

	May I sugesst that clearly this portion of the specification is
NOT correct?  Notice the points that I have highlited.  (Also, I HAVE read
a good portion (if not all) of RFC822)

>      date        =  1*2DIGIT month 2DIGIT        ; day month year
                                     ^^^^^^        ; e.g. 20 Jun 82

>      hour        =  2DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT [":" 2DIGIT]

	Thanks for clarifying the comment bit, if you didn't figure out
what I was pointing out, we use a 4 digit year (have for as long as I
remeber), and the standard specifies (explicately), a 2 digit year.

							Jessica

---

From: "Ed Greshko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:44:57 +0800

Jessica,

> a good portion (if not all) of RFC822)

Hummm....  Your Sunday not going well?

You can suggest that this portion of the spec is incorrect....but you'd be
wrong.  You can't say that an adopted Internet standard is "incorrect".  You can
only you don't agree with it.

I thought we were only talking about that last comment field?  Don't know why
you decided it was a good idea to jump down my throat about 99' v.s. 1999?  If
I'd known you wanted to talk about the year portion I may have included
references to the extensions to RFC822.

> remeber), and the standard specifies (explicately), a 2 digit year.

Well, since in your original message only talked about the timezone I didn't
grasp that you were talking about the year.  I could send you what you wrote if
you've forgotten.

Your welcome and regards,
Ed

---

From: Jessica Rasku <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 21:53:25 -0700 (PDT)

> Hummm....  Your Sunday not going well?

	It is people who get all high and mighty that make people's days
go poorly...

> only you don't agree with it.

	You are quite right, I chose to word my comment poorly.  I'm not
saying that it's not correct really, or even that I don't agree with it,
but more correctly, that it is NOT implemented the way that what you sent
sais that it should be.  

> references to the extensions to RFC822.

	Um, who is jumping down WHO'S throat?  I was SIMPLY pointing out a
problem that you failed to notice.  Um, these extensions, would they not
be part of a DIFFRENT RFC?  Would it not be correct that if they are part
of a DIFFRENT RFC that they are not part of RFC822?  

> grasp that you were talking about the year.  I could send you what you wrote if

	What *I* wrote, was about how that coment field (not knowing it
was a comment field (which I should have known)), can be CONFUSING.  If
you care to actually read the WHOLE post, before jumping on your reply
key, maybe you'll see that.  In fact, I have said nothing other than the
year thing which is contrary to RFC822

							Jessica

---

From: "Ed Greshko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:34:54 +0800

Jessica,

> 	It is people who get all high and mighty that make people's days

????

> but more correctly, that it is NOT implemented the way that what you sent

The comment field was the point of "debate".  The "year", as far as I could tell
wasn't.

Pardon me for saying this...but if you "chose" to word (your) comments poorly
then you should expect there to be misunderstandings.

> of a DIFFRENT RFC that they are not part of RFC822?

????

Just let me say that my sole purpose was to correct the misunderstanding of the
comment portion of the Date: line.  I'm sorry if you take my "suggestion" as
being anything other than trying to be helpful.

> year thing which is contrary to RFC822

Please tell me which part of your post I failed to read correctly which
indicates you were addressing a "problem" with the year.  In the original post
from Dave he cited the "illegal timezone in the Date: header" as the source of
his problem.  Nothing about the "1999".  When you responded to him you talked
about EST.  I didn't see anything which indicated a "year" problem.  It is
possible you've sent more than one post on this matter to the forum and it
didn't reach me.

Regards,
Ed

P.S.  This seems like it is getting away from a "pine" discussion.  Don't you
agree?

---

From: Jessica Rasku <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 23:10:42 -0700 (PDT)

For sanity sake <PLONK>....

							Jessica