On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 06:40:15PM -0300, Eduardo Alvarez wrote: > On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 03:19:55PM +0000, Chris Green wrote: > > 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? > > Hello, Chris, > > What I do is that at work, I mount my home mail folder using sshfs. That way, > I > can use my local copies of mutt, xpdf, etc. With large messages, it can get > slow, sometimes, but it does save some time. > Yes, I guess that's one way of doing it, not too difficult to automate using a script. I could simply mount my ~/.mutt and my ~/Mail directories and run mutt on the laptop (which is what I'm always using when away from home). Slow with mbox I fear though, I might have to change to Maildir to make it usable.
Doesn't anyone use IMAP? I must admit when I tried it (a few times over the years, but not very recently) it never felt quite as easy and transparent as using mutt on a local mail spool. -- Chris Green
