[9fans] upas : without acme : possible?

[9fans] upas : without acme : possible?

[Mayuresh Kathe]

hello,

is it possible to use "upas" without relying on acme?
it might be uncomfortable (relatively speaking), but is it possible?

~mayuresh

Re: [9fans] upas : without acme : possible?

[Alexander Sychev]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 572 bytes --]

Hi,

Sure, no problem. Upas exports a filesystem, you can read it :-)
Although I use plan9port version of upas with acme and my client 'amail',
sometimes I use 9p to read, for example, a raw message body to send it to
spam analitics.
But reading messages is uncomfortable, it is true.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 4:47 PM Mayuresh Kathe <mayuresh@kathe.in> wrote:

> hello,
>
> is it possible to use "upas" without relying on acme?
> it might be uncomfortable (relatively speaking), but is it possible?
>
> ~mayuresh
>
>
>

--
Best regards,
  Alexander

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1052 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] upas : without acme : possible?

[Dan Cross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 691 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 8:45 AM Mayuresh Kathe <mayuresh@kathe.in> wrote:

> hello,
>
> is it possible to use "upas" without relying on acme?
> it might be uncomfortable (relatively speaking), but is it possible?
>

Yes. This is quite reasonable. To a first order approximation, `upas` is a
mail transfer agent, for moving mail around across a network (or just into
a mailbox on a local system) while Acme provides a mail client (a "mail
user agent") based on a filesystem.

There used to be, and probably still is, another mail client just called
'mail' that could be used to read and send mail, but that is also
independent of upas.

Hope that helps.

        - Dan C.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1060 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] upas : without acme : possible?

[Mayuresh Kathe]

On 2018-11-29 08:04 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 8:45 AM Mayuresh Kathe <mayuresh@kathe.in>
> wrote:
>
>> hello,
>>
>> is it possible to use "upas" without relying on acme?
>> it might be uncomfortable (relatively speaking), but is it possible?
>
> Yes. This is quite reasonable. To a first order approximation, `upas`
> is a mail transfer agent, for moving mail around across a network (or
> just into a mailbox on a local system) while Acme provides a mail
> client (a "mail user agent") based on a filesystem.
>
> There used to be, and probably still is, another mail client just
> called 'mail' that could be used to read and send mail, but that is
> also independent of upas.

is that "mail" you mention similar to "mailx" under unix-like systems?
the problem is one of not wanting a captive user-interface to the
mailing sub-system.

i really hate moving out of the text console and away from the
command-line.

yes, i really don't mind having multiple consoles around instead of the
unixy way of switching terminals using ctrl+fn keys.

thanks,

~mayuresh

Re: [9fans] upas : without acme : possible?

[Kurt H Maier]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 08:27:09PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
>
> is that "mail" you mention similar to "mailx" under unix-like systems?
> the problem is one of not wanting a captive user-interface to the
> mailing sub-system.
>

You're looking for nedmail(1), I think.  Hopefully sl will chime in;
he's got a pile of scripts revolving around this idea.

khm

Re: [9fans] upas : without acme : possible?

[erik quanstrom]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 283 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] upas : without acme : possible?

[Steve Simon]

you can send mail with the mail command, just like traditional mailers.

reading mail: i use the same tool but envoked from faces(1) - right click on the face of the person who sent the mail to read the message.

people tend to be very impressed with faces to this day. great interface.

-Steve


> On 29 Nov 2018, at 3:58 pm, Kurt H Maier <khm@sciops.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 08:27:09PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
>> 
>> is that "mail" you mention similar to "mailx" under unix-like systems?
>> the problem is one of not wanting a captive user-interface to the 
>> mailing sub-system.
>> 
> 
> You're looking for nedmail(1), I think.  Hopefully sl will chime in;
> he's got a pile of scripts revolving around this idea.
> 
> khm

Re: [9fans] upas : without acme : possible?

[sl]

I ended up writing a ned-alike that is just a shell script:

http://plan9.stanleylieber.com/rc/mother

This is what I actually use.

sl

Re: [9fans] upas : without acme : possible?

[Mayuresh Kathe]

On 2018-11-30 10:10 AM, sl@9front.org wrote:
> It's not clear why you think the interface provided by upasfs(4) is
> captive, or why you insist acme needs to be involved at all. I'm
> writing this message with nedmail/marshal, connected to Plan 9 in a
> plain SSH terminal session -> OpenBSD -> drawterm -G. No GUI or
> terminal frills or frippery is involved.

wow, i'll definitely check out nedmail/marshal.
btw, i don't think the interface provided by upasfs might be captive,
it's the mail/mailx interface which is so damn painful (from a usage
philosophy perspective).

~mayuresh

Re: [9fans] upas : without acme : possible?

[sl]

It's not clear why you think the interface provided by upasfs(4) is captive, or why you insist acme needs to be involved at all. I'm writing this message with nedmail/marshal, connected to Plan 9 in a plain SSH terminal session -> OpenBSD -> drawterm -G. No GUI or terminal frills or frippery is involved.

sl

Re: [9fans] upas : without acme : possible?

[Mayuresh Kathe]

On 2018-11-30 09:02 AM, sl@9front.org wrote:
>> is that "mail" you mention similar to "mailx" under unix-like systems?
>> the problem is one of not wanting a captive user-interface to the
>> mailing sub-system.
>
> On Plan 9, 'mail' is a shell script that invokes either nedmail(1) or
> marshal(1), depending on the flags it consumes.
>
> The nedmail program is nearly identical, from a user interface
> standpoint, to the mail command that shipped with the 8th edition of
> Research UNIX.  It remains part of the same (though evolved) e-mail
> processing system, upas.
>
> Ned is a little different than mailx(1), but it's probably just about
> what you're looking for.
>
> Plan 9's mail system itself (upas) relies heavily upon upasfs(4),
> filter(1), and simple rc scripts, which make even complex tasks
> like custom spam filtering and automatic mailbox management
> trivial.

i was looking for a non-captive user-interface email client like "mh" by
rand corporation. i guess i'll either have to learn to use acme with
upas or write my own "mh" replacement for plan 9.

~mayuresh

Re: [9fans] upas : without acme : possible?

[sl]

> is that "mail" you mention similar to "mailx" under unix-like systems?
> the problem is one of not wanting a captive user-interface to the
> mailing sub-system.

On Plan 9, 'mail' is a shell script that invokes either nedmail(1) or
marshal(1), depending on the flags it consumes.

The nedmail program is nearly identical, from a user interface
standpoint, to the mail command that shipped with the 8th edition of
Research UNIX.  It remains part of the same (though evolved) e-mail
processing system, upas.

Ned is a little different than mailx(1), but it's probably just about
what you're looking for.

Plan 9's mail system itself (upas) relies heavily upon upasfs(4),
filter(1), and simple rc scripts, which make even complex tasks
like custom spam filtering and automatic mailbox management
trivial.

sl