09-07-2003 07:06									#1
	linux tech help needed Get a bigger avatar today!

Dont start Asher

I want to get my hotmail account working in linux (Slackware 9.0, KDE3.1) and KMail, but have no idea what/how to do.

Anyone got any ideas?

Cheers

	09-07-2003 09:29									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Why?

It seems rather odd to be using linux combined with a MS email system.

	09-07-2003 09:32									#3
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hm, can't you just use the Web-based interface?

	09-07-2003 10:19									#4
	Increase Your PM Length

Theoretically:

If KMail has a POP configuration field (and I think it does; Evolution does, anyway), then you put the POP server address in there, and the SMTP server address in the SMTP server field. And your username and password and stuff.

If it doesn't have a POP field, you need to use an RMR like fetchmail to get the mail for you. If KMail doesn't have an SMTP field (which would be really stupid), you need an MTA like Postfix. I know fetchmail's really easy, but I've never used Postfix.

That's all assuming that Hotmail will let you access a POP server. If it doesn't, you're buggered and you have to use the web interface.

Email services and the local operating system should have complete orthogonality--that is, changes to one require no changes to the other. They're completely different things. But MS likes to integrate their services (a la Passport). I don't know, I don't use Hotmail. But if there's a POP server listed somewhere, you should be safe.

SP

Last edited by Fve Crathva on 09-07-2003 at 10:28

	09-07-2003 12:45									#5
	Full PM-box? Change here!

You can't access Hotmail through KMail.

It does not use POP, it's HTTP based.

My solution for you is to use Mozilla since it is the best thing since sliced bread.

	09-07-2003 12:47									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Asher My solution for you is to use Mozilla since it is the best thing since sliced bread.

Who hacked Ashers account?

	09-07-2003 12:56									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Sarcasm doesn't work well with text.

	09-07-2003 13:02									#8
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I wasn't sarcastic, just wondering, because I thought you were in favor of the IE.

	09-07-2003 13:03									#9
	Support Apolyton

I was being sarcastic.

I'm not "in favor" of IE, I just find it faster, more compatible, and less bloaty.

I don't use any of the extra features in Opera and Mozilla because I don't need them, and the only purpose Mozilla serves for me is a decent browser for Solaris and Linux.

	09-07-2003 13:12									#10
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Well, of course it is faster, considering that it loads at boot time and on call only displays a frame window. An advantage other browsers don't get in Windows.

As for "more compatible", well, it's kind of sad that the browser manufacturers fight this "feature war", thus skewing HTML and creating compatibility issues. This concerns all browser manufacturers equally. Best thing would be to use stock HTML and not using browser dependent features at all. Ever heard of the "This page is designed for any browser" movement?

Oh, and I don't really want to start a browser discussion now. I'm using the IE myself and have nothing against it per se.

	09-07-2003 13:17									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Sir Ralph Well, of course it is faster, considering that it loads at boot time and on call only displays a frame window. An advantage other browsers don't get in Windows.

Mozilla does with the default "Turbo" mode. Still significantly slower.

	09-07-2003 17:46									#12
	Remove this text

i've found that once opera starts up on my box, it works just as fast as ie.

then again, it might be because i have the benefit of 768mb ram.

	09-07-2003 18:09									#13
	Suffering from ads?

I've got a full Gb of ram and Opera (which I've been using since yesterday) takes significantly longer than Konqueror.

	09-07-2003 18:19									#14
	Tired of ads?

interesting. are you using the static or dynamic distribution?

	09-07-2003 19:32									#15
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Mozilla is slower, but hey I like features and buttons to play with. In all fairness to MS, IE is a good piece of code, but for the fact its closed source and there's been many security issues, not to say that Mozilla hasnt had some (I assume), but I just prefer Mozilla. Speeds pretty irrelevant on my 2.8GHz box .

I want to use KMail or Evolution, preferably KMail because it will load faster, as I use kde and the qt libs will already be in memory. I hate the web interface, it takes too long to load, its inconvenient, and I want to click on those "mailto" hyperlinks .

I tried the pop3 thing, but I have no idea what to do there, its asking for hosts and ports etc etc etc, and I'm stuck.

	09-07-2003 19:48									#16
	Suffering from ads?

If Asher says POP3 doesn't work with Hotmail, you can safely believe him. So you're toast with your mail programs. Best solution is, scrap Hotmail at all. There are craploads of other free mail providers who support POP3, try to get one of those. Hell, I even have a free POP3-able account in Kirgistan (.kg addresses are kewl ), that for sure can't be a problem.

	09-07-2003 20:34									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Asher I'm not "in favor" of IE, I just find it faster, more compatible, and less bloaty.

Faster in what? Rendering time or program load time?

Compatible with what? XHTML? CSS1 and CSS2? What?

Less bloaty than what? I download Mozilla at a bit over 10MB and it has built-in CJK processing. IE 6.x is far fatter than 10MB, and has no built-in CJK processing (probably doesn't know anything else such as Arabic or Hebrew without downloading huge files either).

	09-07-2003 21:49									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Faster in what? Rendering time or program load time?

I honestly can't notice any difference in rendering time between the browsers, but IE loads significantly faster. And I open/close windows a lot.

quote: Compatible with what? XHTML? CSS1 and CSS2? What?

Real world websites.

quote: Less bloaty than what? I download Mozilla at a bit over 10MB and it has built-in CJK processing. IE 6.x is far fatter than 10MB, and has no built-in CJK processing (probably doesn't know anything else such as Arabic or Hebrew without downloading huge files either).

I don't care about filesize, my hard drive is big enough. I care about RAM usage.

And for the record, my IE6 supports Arabic (ASMO 708, DOS, Windows, ISO) and Hebrew (DOS, ISO-Logical, ISO-Visual, Windows). And I'm pretty sure I didn't download those.

	09-07-2003 22:24									#19
	Support Apolyton

afaik, ie6 has built in cjk processing.

winxp allows cjk menus and dialogues as well...

otoh, ie5.5 and below did not have built in cjk processing. nor did office 2000 and below.

everything xp and above and ie6+ seems to have it built in.