Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020610120352.04c79318@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 12:05:30 -0400
To: Thomas Baker <thomas DOT baker AT bi DOT fhg DOT de>
From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Subject: Re: Mailcap and Cygwin/Mutt 1.2.5i
Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
In-Reply-To: <20020610175315.A2164@mail.gmd.de>
References: <5 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 14 DOT 0 DOT 20020610104439 DOT 04c869a0 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com>
 <20020609114821 DOT A2224 AT LEPIDUS>
 <20020607145647 DOT A160 AT LEPIDUS>
 <20020607133143 DOT GB1408 AT NBOF>
 <20020607162934 DOT D1872 AT LEPIDUS>
 <20020607150006 DOT GB604 AT NBOF>
 <20020609114821 DOT A2224 AT LEPIDUS>
 <20020610110850 DOT A2132 AT mail DOT gmd DOT de>
 <5 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 14 DOT 0 DOT 20020610104439 DOT 04c869a0 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 11:53 AM 6/10/2002, Thomas Baker wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 10:45:56AM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>> At 05:09 AM 6/10/2002, Thomas Baker wrote:
>> >2) A weakly related question: My .fetchmailrc is supposed to
>> >   have permissions of 710 "at a maximum", but chmod 710
>> >   .fetchmailrc (under Cygwin) doesn't seem to change the
>> >   permissions at all.
>> 
>> See:
>> Why doesn't chmod work?
>> http://cygwin.com/faq/faq_4.html#SEC45
>
>Hmm, I see...  The recommendation in SEC45, when a workaround
>is required, is to modify the application's source code.
>Perhaps this would need to be done for a Cygwin build of
>Fetchmail so that it wouldn't make this unmeetable demand?


Absolutely, in order to handle this for 9x platforms.  As you can see, 
this issue isn't a new one.  It's just awaiting someone interested enough
in it to patch it.


>> >3) Another WRQ: On the first tries, procmail delivers mail
>> >   without From-lines, and I figured out that this has
>> >   something to do with the %F and %T "escapes" but have not
>> >   found any documentation on these things at all (other than a
>> >   "man fetchmail" warning that they are potentially unsafe).
>> 
>> Check the email archives for this one.  It was discussed in the last
>> few weeks.
>
>Bingo.  (The search engine didn't like "%F", so I downloaded
>the last six months of postings and fgrep'd; figured I'd need
>to consult them anyway...:-)
>
>Thank you!


You're welcome.



Larry Hall                              lhall AT rfk DOT com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/