Re: PINE problem

On 03/02/2010, Bret Busby <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 01/02/2010, Eduardo Chappa <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010, Bret Busby wrote:
>>
>> BB> Today, when I tried to run PINE, after it performing its archiving,
>> it
>> BB> collapsed, with the returned error;
>>
>> Bret,
>>
>>   You are in big trouble, for several reasons. For one, even if you
>> figured out what is making Pine crash, you need to report this to the
>> person that built Pine from source (it seems that you are using Pine in
>> Debian. Debian does not support Pine, since it is nonfree).
>>
>>   If you are still thinking of using Pine, my advice is that you build it
>> by yourself, reconfigure it with your old configuration and hopefully
>> everything will work again as it should. The only difference between the
>> Debian Pine and the UW Pine is that the former uses a non-stable Maildir
>> patch, while the latter does not. However, configuration files,
>> directories, etc. differ between the two, so you will have to have some
>> patience to reconfigure everything for it to work (maybe using an
>> alternate .pinerc, that is a copy of the original, will help).
>>
>>  Having said all this, there is a version of Alpine for Debian, which
>> does
>> not have Maildir support. If you need Maildir support, you can patch it
>> yourself.
>>
>>  In your case I really recommend you to try to find a way to upgrade to
>> Alpine (incrementally, if you think that's better). I do not see much
>> future in trying to get support for Pine today.
>>
>>  If you get a clean version of Pine that can be used to reproduce the
>> problem, you will have to run Pine under gdb, and send the output of the
>> "bt" command, so that we can take a look what your problem is.
>>
>>  I hope this helps a bit.
>>
>> --
>> Eduardo
>> http://staff.washington.edu/chappa/pine/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pine-info mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/pine-info
>>
>
> Does alpine flush messages from the INBOX, as it filters them?
>
> I have just rerun pine and its filters, by accident (by logging in,
> instead of bypassing the login; bypassing the login would have taken
> me dirtect to the folders), and, it reran the filters, copying but not
> moving the messages to the folders by flushing them as it filtered
> them, and, apart from now having multiple copies of the messages in
> the folders, I have about13MB of messages remaining in the INBOX, so I
> have had to stop fetchmail on our mailserver.
>
> This failure to flush messages from the INBOX, as they are filtered,
> has been a long running problem with pine, and, if it is not fixed in
> alpine, then alpine would appear to be not much better than pine.
>
> fetchmail flushes messages as it downloads them, so, if it crashes
> during a download, multiple copies should not be downloaded.
>
> Similarly, if pine, and, alpine, flush(es) messages as they are copied
> to the folders into which they are filtered, then the effects of
> crashes, would not be as bad.
>
> To install and use alpine, to replace pine, the only way that I can
> see of doing it, is buying a new computer, and building a new system,
> with alpine instead of pine, then copying all of the mail folders and
> the .pinerc file, to the new system, in addition to my web browsers'
> data (bookmarks, etc), and, it would be such a waste, if the same
> problem persists within alpine.
>
> --
>
> Bret Busby
> ................
>

Oh, and, one thing that I forgot to mention in that last message; I
sat and watched pine while it was running, to see where it crashed.

It went through the filtering, then displayed "filtering done", and
then promptly crashed. It is as if it suddenly realised it had the
megabytes to flush, decided it was too much, and "gave up and went
home".

This could have been avoided (?) if pine had functioned properly, and,
flushed mesages as it filtered them, perhaps at the conclusion of each
filter, so that, if it copied 24 messages to a folder, in the running
of a filter, as soon as that filter concluded, before moving to the
next filter, it flushed the messages that were copied. It would also
be more efficient, as subsequent filters would not be running over the
same messages that had alraeady been copied by the filter.

If alpine has this functionality, then it would definitely be worth
the move, with the expense and the work required, and the
inconvenience of the move.

-- 

Bret Busby
................
_______________________________________________
Pine-info mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/pine-info