On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 06:10:10PM -0500, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> Chris Green [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > I have been using mutt on a number of different systems for quite a
> > long while (since something like version 0.7x I think). It has served
> > me well and has become steadily better. However I am now seriously
> > looking at other MUAs and one of the main reasons is mutt's minimal
> > POP3 support.
>
> If you like Mutt so much, why not look instead at using another POP3
> implementation (fetchmail) while still using Mutt? That's how it's
> /supposed/ to work.
>
Fetchmail is equally useless. Another user has reported *exactly* the
same problem that I have. If you read your POP3 mailbox from more
than one location fetchmail simply doesn't work.
What I need is to be able to view my POP3 'folder' and delete
individual messages. Most of the newer Unix/Linux MUAs do in fact
work this way with POP3 folders, it makes them look just like ordinary
local folders to the user. Using fetchmail with mutt can't do this at
all.
> > Mutt as it stands simply can't handle this [POP3] situation well.
>
> But why do you expect that it should? Do you expect sendmail to have a
> nice interface for reading your mail, when that isn't its job? Why should
> Mutt, which is meant to read/compose mails, have functionality to transfer
> them as well? POP3 is a mail /transport/ protocol. Mutt doesn't do mail
> transport (except for the existing, old, basic POP3 code which shouldn't be
> there either).
>
> The problem isn't with Mutt, it's with your monolithic ideas of how this
> should be set up. Get fetchmail, configure it, macro index G
> "!fetchmail<enter>", and be done with it.
>
It *can't* do the same thing as MUAs that handle POP3 sensibly can as
I have explained above. I would love to move over to IMAP4 as this
would do exactly what I want but in the real world ISPs are not
providing IMAP4 servers so I have to work with POP3.
> > It's also
> > more difficult (though quite possible) in mutt to set up different
> > 'personalities'. My ideal would be a mailer which allows
> > customisation of most settings on a per folder basis, some of the
> > better MUAs are now moving towards this sort of approach (Eudora 4 Pro
> > in Windows, Mahogany in X and Windows). Mutt can do this but it's not
> > so 'personality' oriented.
>
> Some of the "better" MUAs? -boggle- Eudora is crap from a perspective of
> standards implementation and sensible MIME handling.
>
I didn't say I *liked* Eudora, in fact I don't think I've found any
Windows mail program that I can really get on with. Eudora is one of
the better windows mailers, that doesn't necessarily make it good.
> Anyway... this is trivial in Mutt, and rather complete. Use folder-hooks
> and you can do literally anything you want when you enter any given folder.
> If you want it 'personality' oriented, try using comments and grouped
> commands in your .muttrc. Or sourcing different files, etc. The only real
> point of 'personalities' is organization, and IMO you can do this just as
> easily with the above.
>
This is why I said it *can* be done in mutt but it's not handled in
such a user friendly way. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Unix hacker at
heart, I use procmail and mutt on this system here. I'm just looking
for a better way of handling my multi-homed mail access, I may end up
staying with mutt but it's not perfect for me by any means.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
