On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 11:36:48AM +0000, Chris Green wrote: > 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.
No, this is not the way Mutt works. It has nothing to do with IMAP or POP. The only practical difference is with IMAP what's on the server is synced with your client. If you delete it, it's deleted on the server. With POP you can intentionally leave things on the server or delete them when read. > > 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. No it is not. It is a mail protocol. > > > 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 doesn't matter whether you use IMAP or POP. It matters where mutt runs. > > 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. That's not the point. What is more important to you, having a web page rendered properly or having your file system in good shape? Anyway this whole thing is unnecessary. /jl -- ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Powered by Lemote Fuloong against HTML e-mail X Loongson MIPS and OpenBSD and proprietary / \ http://www.mutt.org attachments / \ Code Blue or Go Home! Encrypted email preferred PGP Key 2048R/DA65BC04
