On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:06:16AM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > On Thursday, March 19 at 09:21 AM, quoth Marc Vaillant: > >> Sorry, but I think, here you are wrong. Good IMAP-Clients don’t > >> download the attachments without your interaction (at least you can > >> configure them in such a way). So the reading of the mails should > >> be fast in both ways. But if you wish to open an attachment, IMAP > >> is better than using SSH and local spool. > > > > Is there a way to view the body of an imap message without mutt actually > > fetching (not saving) all attachments? > > Not with mutt. Since mutt was originally designed for viewing a local > mail spool, it has no concept of "partial" messages. Mutt's IMAP > features are really there to simulate a local mail spool, which means > certain features like that would be tough to add (not impossible, but > tough).
Ok, understood. > > Depending on your definitions, that may mean that mutt isn't a "good" > IMAP client. It's *reliable*, and it *works*, but it certainly doesn't > take advantage of all the features of IMAP that it theoretically > could. I agree. Support for IMAP in mutt certainly has improved over the years though. Before header-cache, IMAP was basically unusable without something like offlineimap. > > > Fetching a 5-10mb attachment just to view the body text is a > > significant annoyance when I'm away from my local work LAN. I'd like > > to be able to view the body text and have mutt fetch the attachments > > only when I hit "v" -> "return" to view the attachment. > > Suggest the feature to the developers. Better yet, implement it > yourself and submit a patch! Be warned, though: that patch would take > a *lot* of work. I've been a user for over a decade now. I'd love to contribute, I just don't have time right now :( Marc
