On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 08:37:06PM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
> begin Alan James quotation:
>
> > I'd like to give maildir a go, so how do I convert MH to MailDir ?
>
> If you use procmail, just set up new empty maildir folders corresponding
> to each of your old MH folders, edit .procmailrc t
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 12:25:31AM -0500, Chris Hilts wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 08:37:06PM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
> > (and to know that they're in maildir format), then run all your old
> > messages back through procmail again.
>
> I believe procmail comes with a utility called 'formai
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 08:37:06PM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
> (and to know that they're in maildir format), then run all your old
> messages back through procmail again.
I believe procmail comes with a utility called 'formail' which you might
find useful for this.
Chris Hilts
[EMAIL PROTECTED
begin Alan James quotation:
> I'd like to give maildir a go, so how do I convert MH to MailDir ?
If you use procmail, just set up new empty maildir folders corresponding
to each of your old MH folders, edit .procmailrc to use the new folders
(and to know that they're in maildir format), then ru
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 12:59:15PM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
> begin Alan James quotation:
>
> > Are you still using MH folders ? How'd you get mutt to show a list of MH
> > folders with the new message count for each ?
>
> I converted my MH folders to maildir and now I use that. Mutt seems
begin Alan James quotation:
> Are you still using MH folders ? How'd you get mutt to show a list of MH
> folders with the new message count for each ?
I converted my MH folders to maildir and now I use that. Mutt seems to
handle maildir better, and it's a better format in general (you don't
h
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:44:30 -0800
Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I found it a major annoyance, but maybe I just receive a lot more mail
> than you do.
Probably, ive just joined this list, and I've more than doubled my daily mail.
> To me, also, there was the basic question, why do I
begin Alan James quotation:
> Bob Thibodeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I thought I'd try Sylpheed after seing mention of it on this
> > list, but never felt like configuring another client. Now that
> > I've read it doesn't play nice with mutt, I'll just remove it.
>
> I've got it working
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:36:18 -0500
Bob Thibodeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought I'd try Sylpheed after seing mention of it on this
> list, but never felt like configuring another client. Now that
> I've read it doesn't play nice with mutt, I'll just remove it.
I've got it working reasonab
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 02:00:03 -0600
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I dunno. Don't have it installed anymore. Pretty recent version
> > > of the non-claws version (last month or so). The memory leak was
> > > a slow but substantial one. I was often leaving Sylpheed running
> > > for
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 04:53:02 -0300 Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:06:10 -0800
> "Eric G. Miller" wrote:
>
> > I dunno. Don't have it installed anymore. Pretty recent version
> > of the non-claws version (last month or so). The memory leak was
> > a s
On 24 Feb 2002 20:28:56 +
Patrick Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-02-24 at 19:55, Bill Moseley wrote:
> > At 11:25 AM 02/24/02 -0800, Eric G. Miller wrote:
>
> >
> > Although I read that IMAP can be slow if you have many mailboxes (I have
> > almost 100), and hundreds of messa
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:06:10 -0800
"Eric G. Miller" wrote:
> I dunno. Don't have it installed anymore. Pretty recent version
> of the non-claws version (last month or so). The memory leak was
> a slow but substantial one. I was often leaving Sylpheed running
> for days, but after a couple it w
I switched from Eudora and Pegasus in Windows to
Elm and now mutt in Linux. I found the transition to be
painless, although I did miss the folder handling in the
early days. I did run Pegasus with WINE for a while, but
made the final switch because I wanted to get away from
the non-standard mailbox
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 06:30:17PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 21:56:23 -0800
> "Eric G. Miller" wrote:
>
> > Possibly dead?
> >
> > > Sylpheed: (which I just read about on this list).
> >
> > Works pretty well. Is fairly lightweight. I noticed it leaks a
> >
On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 21:56:23 -0800
"Eric G. Miller" wrote:
> Possibly dead?
>
> > Sylpheed: (which I just read about on this list).
>
> Works pretty well. Is fairly lightweight. I noticed it leaks a
> significant amount of memory over time (days). No idea about
> IMAP support (think
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 09:41:54 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 09:33:55AM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
> >
> > Sylpheed is quite nice. I don't use it myself because I don't want to be
> > dependent on an X app to read my mail (I use mutt), but my wife switched
> > to Sylphee
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 09:22:22 -0800
Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> begin Michael P. Soulier quotation:
>
> > Sylpheed is excellent I'm told.
>
> Sylpheed is quite nice. I don't use it myself because I don't want to be
> dependent on an X app to read my mail (I use mutt), but my
On Sun, 2002-02-24 at 14:28, Patrick Kirk wrote:
> Evolution is a heavy application and has some quirks. but it is a very
> good IMAP client in that it allows shortcuts to your frequently used
> mailboxes and only asks you to select from mailboxes as opposed to all
> files.
I run an IMAP server
On Sun, 2002-02-24 at 19:55, Bill Moseley wrote:
> At 11:25 AM 02/24/02 -0800, Eric G. Miller wrote:
>
> Although I read that IMAP can be slow if you have many mailboxes (I have
> almost 100), and hundreds of messages a day.
>
>
I have the same problem. The truth is that most mail cleints that
At 11:25 AM 02/24/02 -0800, Eric G. Miller wrote:
>I believe nmh uses .mh_sequences or some such. So, that would probably
>be the "standard" way. Sylpheed uses it's own sequence file, so it
>won't even jibe with the mh way of managing mail. This is something
>the Sylpheed folks should fix. I tr
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 01:00:15PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 10:05:13 -0800 Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > begin [EMAIL PROTECTED] quotation:
> >
> > > Is there a debian package for Sylpheed?
> >
> > Yes, in Woody and Sid.
> >
> > > BTW -- why would using
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 10:05:13 -0800 Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> begin [EMAIL PROTECTED] quotation:
>
> > Is there a debian package for Sylpheed?
>
> Yes, in Woody and Sid.
>
> > BTW -- why would using an X mail application exclude you from also
> > running mutt?
>
> It's not so
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 09:41:54 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 09:33:55AM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
> >
> > Sylpheed is quite nice. I don't use it myself because I don't want to be
> > dependent on an X app to read my mail (I use mutt), but my wife switched
> > to Sylphee
begin [EMAIL PROTECTED] quotation:
> Is there a debian package for Sylpheed?
Yes, in Woody and Sid.
> BTW -- why would using an X mail application exclude you from also
> running mutt?
It's not so much "prevented" as "made sufficiently painful". I tried
using Sylpheed and mutt together severa
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 09:33:55AM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
>
> Sylpheed is quite nice. I don't use it myself because I don't want to be
> dependent on an X app to read my mail (I use mutt), but my wife switched
> to Sylpheed after we decided that Outlook Express was too dangerous, and
> she's
At 08:46 AM 02/24/02 -0800, Wendell Cochran wrote:
>> So, to start off with, I'm looking to make the transition to full-time
>Linux easy by finding similar tools to I'm used to using.
>[snip]
>
>Similarities can be confusing. Maybe -- maybe -- you'd do better
>to accept differences, even seek them
begin Michael P. Soulier quotation:
> Sylpheed is excellent I'm told.
Sylpheed is quite nice. I don't use it myself because I don't want to be
dependent on an X app to read my mail (I use mutt), but my wife switched
to Sylpheed after we decided that Outlook Express was too dangerous, and
s
> Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 21:38:37 -0800
> From: Bill Moseley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[snip]
> . . . Like many, I'm coming from a Windows environment. I've got
> three linux machines under my desk and for a year now I've booted Win98
> used basically only browsers and Eudora (3.0) on my Win9
On 23/02/02 Bill Moseley did speaketh:
> My head is swimming a bit trying to limit my choices of mail clients to test.
My personal preference is Mutt, but coming from browsers and Eudora, you
might want to try something simpler to begin with.
Evolution is not ready, IMHO. Even at 1.0 su
On Sun, 2002-02-24 at 05:55, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
>
> > I was using RedHat 7.2 for a while and I actually liked the KDE setup,
> > although a bit heavy weight. But I also like how light-weight of a setup I
> > now have with Debian. (I suppose I'll need a desktop environment at some
> > point
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 09:38:37PM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
> And not related to email, anyone have a replacement suggestion (other than
> Emacs ;) for my old basic friend on the windows side of Program File Editor
> (pfe)?
Don't waste time with emacs and vi. Try jed. It's the best console
editor
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 09:38:37PM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
> I was using RedHat 7.2 for a while and I actually liked the KDE setup,
> although a bit heavy weight. But I also like how light-weight of a setup I
> now have with Debian. (I suppose I'll need a desktop environment at some
> point.)
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 09:38:37PM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
> Evolution:
No comment other than lots of eye candy and resource demands.
Several like it. It and its brethren nautilus are just to
resource intensive for my old hardware.
> Mahogany:
No idea.
> Aethera:
No idea.
> I was using RedHat 7.2 for a while and I actually liked the KDE setup,
> although a bit heavy weight. But I also like how light-weight of a setup I
> now have with Debian. (I suppose I'll need a desktop environment at some
> point.)
You might give KDE 2.2.2 (from unstable) a try. It feels m
My head is swimming a bit trying to limit my choices of mail clients to test.
I'm wondering if someone can help narrow my choices.
Background: Like many, I'm coming from a Windows environment. I've got
three linux machines under my desk and for a year now I've booted Win98
used basically only br
36 matches
Mail list logo
