Here are the true frequently asked questions about KBiff (in the order of frequency asked) and their answers.
You have an older version of KBiff. This bug was fixed in KBiff 3.6.3.
Yes! A patch for pop3s and imap4s was supplied by Alex Galakhov for KBiff 3.7. I'm not entirely sure what auth method is uses or what the limitations are.. but it works for me.
If you are using a version of KBiff older than 3.7 (and don't wish to upgrade), then check out a package called stunnel. (http://www.stunnel.org). It can "tunnel" both protocols to an unencrypted port that KBiff can monitor. The general form is:
stunnel -c -d LOCAL:PORT -r REMOTE:PORT
A specific example for IMAP-SSL would be:
stunnel -c -d imap -r mail.isp.net:imaps
After running that command, just have KBiff monitor localhost with normal IMAP and it should work. The same holds true for POP3-SSL.
POP3 is a very difficult protocol to accurately determine what mail is "new" and what isn't. There is a decently odd heuristic in KBiff that works for the vast majority of cases. If it doesn't work for you, then while you are not alone, you are in the minority. I won't change the POP3 code when it works for most people.
I have no idea. In the olden days, this was almost always due to issues related to slow DNS queries and the like. Lately, though, I've been getting reports from people using normal mbox accounts. I have never been able to reproduce this bug, though, so it's difficult to track down. This will likely remain a bug until some enterprising soul who is plagued by it decides to fix it and send me a patch.
If you are running Redhat 9.0, you might want to verify that the System Tray applet is running. Apparently it is not enabled by default.
Possibly, yes. You may have noticed, though, that the KBiff releases are few and far between. If your bug hasn't been fixed by now, it's either a) hard to reproduce or fix or b) one that I don't care about at all. If you run into a bug and feel the need to report it, feel free. Just keep in mind that I probably have already heard about it and I likely will never fix it. So if you want it fixed, well done patches are pretty much mandatory. See the answer to question 5 for more detail on why.
Probably not. KBiff was a fun project to start out with but, honestly, I don't see myself allocating the necessary time to really work on it anymore. It does everything that I want it to do and it does it bug free. Everything else, even your favorite missing feature, is something that in my mind, KBiff doesn't need.
I don't have any problems with people submitting patches or even getting CVS access and making the changes directly. Heck, if you want to become the new full-time maintainer of KBiff, let me know! I've been trying to "give it away" now for a year or two and it's never worked out. The new maintainers have always spent less time on maintainance than I did... thus negating any advantage of giving it up.
- KBiff works perfectly for my needs and thus I have no real drive to devote any time to it anymore
- I do accept well done patches for bug fixes and useful features
- If you think you would make a good maintainer for KBiff, let me know (with a good reason why) and we'll see what happens
Send me an email: firstname.lastname@example.org