On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 10:56:04AM +0000, John Long wrote: > > > If I understood you then yes, but the local machine as far as mutt is > > > concerned is the machine where mutt is running [your remote system], not > > > where you are running [your ssh session from, your local system]. All > > > mutt's working data is where mutt runs, as in all normal apps. > > > > > Exactly. I'm sitting using my laptop in France (for example) and I > > run mutt on the laptop using IMAP to access the E-Mails on my mail > > server machine at home. > > Are you saying you can host a mail server but you can't understand the > difference between running Mutt on a local or remote system? That's > difficult to fathom. > > > So, when I use 'v' to view an HTML E-Mail it stores the file in /tmp on > > the laptop and points my laptop browser at it to view it? > > Check and see?
That's not so easy! I don't currently have an IMAP server for mutt to connect to, hence.... > > > This was really my original question! :-) > > If so then you had no question at all. It's obvious Mutt will save the file > on the system where mutt is running. It cannot work any other way and this > has absolutely nothing to do with IMAP or POP. > It could perfectly well use IMAP and save the file somewhere in the IMAP hierarchy on the remote system. > I believe everyone understood from the beginning of this thread you were > ssh-ing to a remote box and running Mutt on the remote machine. All the > answers until now have been based on that. > Yes, and using IMAP is an *alternative* approach to reading E-Mail remotely. > > OK, it has to download the file so won't be instant but at least it > > works without any extra configuration or commands (except the extra > > complexity, if any, of using IMAP). > > I must have missed a few posts. This seems out of context. > I'm trying to compare the convenience/ease of doing what I do at the moment (ssh to remote, run mutt there) and running mutt on the local laptop and using IMAP. It seems as if IMAP will overcome a couple of the niggles of ssh/mutt but I'm not sure if it's worth the extra hassle of running an IMAP server and putting up with the extra work (not much but there is a bit) of using mutt with IMAP. > > > > No, as I said I just tried it and it doesn't work because Firefox is > > > > too clever and uses the local Firefox rather than the remote one so the > > > > file is in the wrong place. > > > > > > Firefox is POS technology, but depending on the version you can start it > > > not > > > to use your local/running instance. try firefox --no-remote and look > > > around > > > on the web if that doesn't do it. I have run into this several times with > > > network firefox etc and I have it working. > > > > > Yes, I've done it in the past when I was at work and really needed to > > view something that was only accessible from the browser on my home > > machine. Even across a fairly quick UK only internet connection it > > was horrendously slow. > > If you think that's slow then how do you think an SSH filesystem over the > same connection will work? Sounds like a terribly bad idea. > The trouble is that Firefox via X transfers vast amounts of data to continuously update the screen, there's no attempt at efficiency. The ssh filesystem won't have to transfer anything like the same amoount of data. -- Chris Green
