On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 10:30:46AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > * Chris Green <c...@isbd.net> [12-08-14 10:21]: > > I have been using mutt for many, many years with a local (Unix style) > > mail spool. Mail is delivered to my system by SMTP (postfix locally). > > > > At the moment to access my mail remotely I ssh into the server and run > > mutt. This works well in general but there are some disadvantages, in > > particular the 'v' command to access and view HTML, PDF and other > > graphical attachments doesn't work because, of course, there's no GUI > > access to the machine where I'm reading the mail. It's also a bit > > annoying simply saving attachments and then realising they're on the > > remote machine. > > > > So, I'm wondering if using IMAP would make my life easier. I would > > run Dovecot I expect. If I do this do things become more transparent > > to a remote mutt? > > > > E.g. if I want to view an HTML E-Mail in Firefox (default browser) > > instead of within mutt (using lynx) can I just do 'v' followed by > > selecting the HTML attachment as I would when running mutt locally on > > the machine where mail is hosted? > > I work somewhat similarily. I store all mail on my local box and maintain > a tmux session which I access remotely via ssh -X. I can view html using > the home machine's browser remotely but it is quite slow due to connection > speed at most hotels. I prefer to view those very few particular html > files by krusader/dolphin fish and transfer to local machine, then employe > browser on my laptop. > > When using my desktop which is different than mail storage location, I > dump the html via nfs to a file local to my desktop and view using my > desktop's browser. > Yes, that's the alternative (to IMAP) really. However a lot of my remote locations are very remote and have slow connections, running a browser remotely would be unusably slow and similarly NFS would be messy and insecure.
-- Chris Green
