| 1 |
On Sun, 3 May 2009 00:06:54 -0400 |
| 2 |
James <jtp@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I've thought about doing something similar to this, but it's a last |
| 5 |
> resort. I end up using mutt on various different workstations and it'd |
| 6 |
> be nice to run everything "locally". Obviously a solution where I'm |
| 7 |
> fetching mail on every machine where I'm using mutt doesn't scale very |
| 8 |
> well. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
But that's exactly the benefit of IMAP - you can always access your |
| 11 |
mail, gathered from dozens of mailboxes and neatly sorted and filtered |
| 12 |
to your folders, from any workstation, pda, smartphone etc. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
And everything you do in this "metabox" just stays there, so you don't |
| 15 |
have to care about transferring messages between local boxes, |
| 16 |
remembering the messages you've replied to or already read, sorting, |
| 17 |
filtering... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> It's certainly an alternative, however, if I can't find anything else |
| 20 |
> that works. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I've read much criticism of imap protocol, but with such widespread |
| 23 |
adoption I doubt there can be anything more versatile at the moment. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Mike Kazantsev // fraggod.net |
Archives