* Steve Lamb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [25.08.08 08:31]:
> This has never been true and is still not true. It is, of course, the
> easiest way to weed out the mutt zealots who have never touched a true
> multi-account client from those mutt users who have and know the difference.
>
Then please sta
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 11:44:53PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Nicolas KOWALSKI wrote:
> > It's all fine IMHO.
>
> Now enable trash and see what it does there. It is entirely possible they
> have fixed that issue since the last time I tried mutt over imap (which was,
> incidentally, not all th
Nicolas KOWALSKI wrote:
> Are you sure about this ?
As of the last time I tested mutt imap, yes, without question. In fact I
had gone so far as to take a screencast of mutt deleting 200 messages by
copying it to the local machine then uploading it to the trash folder.
However, those configura
Sebastian Günther wrote:
> Look at account-hook and folder-hook and in combination with a nice
> source statement, you everything some bloated GUI mailer has. Even more
> you can easily adjust your profile on folder basis.
This has never been true and is still not true. It is, of course, th
* Andrei Popescu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [23.08.08 09:49]:
> On Wed,20.Aug.08, 16:19:57, Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I prefer that it handle multiple accounts sanely.
>
> I haven't looked into it, but 'muttprofile' seems interesting. Of
> course, it will probably need a lot of fiddling first.
On Wed,20.Aug.08, 16:19:57, Steve Lamb wrote:
[...]
> I prefer that it handle multiple accounts sanely.
I haven't looked into it, but 'muttprofile' seems interesting. Of
course, it will probably need a lot of fiddling first.
Regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't underst
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 03:55:35AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Of course it is, the fact that mutt is using the network to
> download-then-upload the messages is the entire problem! Which is
> going to be
> faster:
>
> A: Downloading 2000 messages totaling 10Mb over a 300kps connection
> then
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 04:19:57PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> One of the many faults I find with mutt is its IMAP
> implementation. In two words, it fails. Copying individual messages
> from the current folder to any other folder, especially trash, by
> downloading the message and then
Steve Kemp wrote:
> If you use the mutt-patched package you can take advantage of the
> sidebar to have a toggleable list of mailboxes on the left side of
> the screen.
> I've further updated that to allow it to show you only folders with
> new messages. See here for details, and here fo
Johann Spies wrote:
> My experience is not that it is 'horribly slow and
> inefficient'. Are you sure that it is not a network-related slowness?
Of course it is, the fact that mutt is using the network to
download-then-upload the messages is the entire problem! Which is going to be
faster:
Daniel Burrows wrote:
> Do you know how this compares to offlineimap? I've been using that
> to synchronize mailboxes more-or-less happily for the last few years.
I do not, no. I have not used offlineimap so cannot make any comparison.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 16:19:57 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> With that one glaring wart hidden I have to say that I've upgraded mutt to
> "viable" again. I still don't like having to search for my new mail.
If you use the mutt-patched package you can take advantage of the
sidebar to have
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 04:19:57PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> One of the many faults I find with mutt is its IMAP implementation. In
> two words, it fails. Copying individual messages from the current folder to
> any other folder, especially trash, by downloading the message and then
> uploa
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 04:19:57PM -0700, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> Enter a tool which made mutt viable for my needs, mbsync (debian package -
> isync). It is a tool which syncronizes a local Maildir folder with a remote
> imap folder. In essence it is a local imap c
?? ?. wrote:
> The problem is that Mutt is agnostic to 'accounts', I'll give you that one,
> but
> I don't think it'd a useful feature -- think about it, what's an account other
> than a From: field?
For those that needs it different SMTP servers with different SMTP
settings,
Hello Steve,
Thanks for your heads up on mbsync. I might try it with my GMail accounts, since
I still have them on POP precisely for the reason that mutt isn't really capable
of handling IMAP fine. But...
Quoth Steve Lamb
> ... The lack of multi-account functionality...
What exactly are your iss
I'm sure many of the long-time readers of D-U are familiar with my many
rants against the horridness that is mutt. I prefer my email client GUI. I
prefer it to do its own transport. I prefer that it handle multiple accounts
sanely. IE, I prefer all things mutt is not. However, this is not
17 matches
Mail list logo
