| 1 |
Bingo. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Mutt works great as an IMAP client (which is rather interesting |
| 4 |
because, to the best of my knowledge, mutt did not support IMAP until |
| 5 |
somewhat "recently", and quite a bit after it first appeared). I |
| 6 |
personally do everything via IMAP -- no worries about switching mail |
| 7 |
clients and having to convert emails. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I don't know what there is to criticize about IMAP. ;) It's infinitely |
| 10 |
better than pop for the grand majority of users. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It is somewhat strange, however, that almost every mail client on the |
| 13 |
planet can "scan" all the mail folders available / used and let the |
| 14 |
user know if there's a new message, but mutt seems to struggle when is |
| 15 |
a very large number of (large) mailboxes. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Mutt, actually, has a built-in "mail checker." To use it you have to |
| 18 |
(a) use mbox format (I believe), and (b) set the mailboxes you want |
| 19 |
monitored in the .muttrc using a format similar to the one below: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
mailboxes +Stuff |
| 22 |
mailboxes +moreStuff |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
This works great when I have one or two mailboxes listed. But when I |
| 25 |
set a mailboxes directive for every one of my mbox files, mutt ends up |
| 26 |
practically hanging and becoming unusable about 95% of the time. It |
| 27 |
takes about 5 minutes from executing mutt until I can start using it |
| 28 |
because it tries to download every single email to keep track of what |
| 29 |
is "already there" so it knows when a new message arrives so it can |
| 30 |
warn the user. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I imagine I'm not the only person who has had this problem in the 14 |
| 33 |
years mutt has been around. ;) I guess that's why gbuffy and xbuffy |
| 34 |
were created in the first place. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Funny how these older tools (mutt, *buffy, etc.) seem to work better |
| 37 |
than all the newer GUI tools like gnubiff, etc.). They just don't seem |
| 38 |
to make things the way they used to. ;) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-j |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 6:05 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 43 |
> On Sunday 03 May 2009 11:44:39 Mike Kazantsev wrote: |
| 44 |
>> > It's certainly an alternative, however, if I can't find anything else |
| 45 |
>> > that works. |
| 46 |
>> |
| 47 |
>> I've read much criticism of imap protocol, but with such widespread |
| 48 |
>> adoption I doubt there can be anything more versatile at the moment. |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> Well, James' problem is not the use of IMAP per se, rather that he can't find |
| 51 |
> a mailbox monitor that works right with IMAP. For him, that's a little bit of |
| 52 |
> a deal-breaker |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> -- |
| 55 |
> alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> |
Archives