At Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:59:28 +0200,
Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 20:51 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Murray Trainer wrote:
> > > Evolution isn't perfect but it can do that. There is a "show only
> > > subscribed folders" button that is on by def
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 20:51 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Murray Trainer wrote:
> > Evolution isn't perfect but it can do that. There is a "show only
> > subscribed folders" button that is on by default but you can turn it
> > off.
>
> Right, but that only gives you your
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Murray Trainer wrote:
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 23:07 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Nikola Milutinovic wrote:
--- Warren Turkal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 10 June 2006 15:49, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
The least sucky email client I have tri
Well there is a special IMAP command for making use of SQUAT.
It's IMAP SEARCH. In this case the server searches for mail and by doing
that, it makes extensive use of the SQUAT index if availiable.
If a client doesn't make use of IMAP SEARCH, but rather download all
mail bodys to search locally,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greg A. Woods wrote:
> The report about Thunderbird on Windoze not using the squat index is
> interesting though
I think that's a flawed report. It's my understanding that the SQUAT
index is used behind the scenes, automatically, by Cyrus if it i
At Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:11:43 -0600,
Michael Loftis wrote:
>
> Junk.
Well it's not great, though it may be one of the best, but
> Same as Outlook and many others, it's not an IMAP client at all.
> Just a NNTP/POP3 reader that can parrot IMAP. IE it has to download ALL
> headers in a mailbox.
Hi,
Murray Trainer wrote:
>>> Any comment on Mozilla Thuderbird?
>>>
>> My big beef against GUI/Unix clients is that there doesn't appear to be
>> any way of 'auto-subscribing' to all folders ...
>>
>
> Evolution isn't perfect but it can do that. There is a "show only subscribed
> f
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Nikola Milutinovic wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --- Warren Turkal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday 10 June 2006 15:49, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
The least sucky email client I have tried so far is KMail.
>>>
>>> I have to concur. I use Kmail via Kontact almost exclusively
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 23:07 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Nikola Milutinovic wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- Warren Turkal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday 10 June 2006 15:49, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> >>> The least sucky email client I have tried so far is KMail.
>
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Nikola Milutinovic wrote:
--- Warren Turkal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 10 June 2006 15:49, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
The least sucky email client I have tried so far is KMail.
I have to concur. I use Kmail via Kontact almost exclusively.
Any comment on Mozi
--On June 12, 2006 11:39:23 AM -0700 Nikola Milutinovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
--- Warren Turkal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 10 June 2006 15:49, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> The least sucky email client I have tried so far is KMail.
I have to concur. I use Kmail via Kontact a
--On June 12, 2006 3:56:51 PM -0300 Andreas Hasenack
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would like to see an imap client who doesn't fetch all the headers from
all messages available in a mailbox. It should fetch just the ones it can
show at once plus a few dozens, and whatever messages are neede
On Tuesday 13 June 2006 04:09, Nikola Milutinovic wrote:
> > I have to concur. I use Kmail via Kontact almost exclusively.
>
> Any comment on Mozilla Thuderbird?
>
> One thing that cought me a bit was it's connection pool, for which I can
> see no justification, in case of a single account. Otherwi
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 11:39:23AM -0700, Nikola Milutinovic wrote:
>
>
> --- Warren Turkal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday 10 June 2006 15:49, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> > > The least sucky email client I have tried so far is KMail.
> >
> > I have to concur. I use Kmail via Kontact
--- Warren Turkal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 10 June 2006 15:49, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> > The least sucky email client I have tried so far is KMail.
>
> I have to concur. I use Kmail via Kontact almost exclusively.
Any comment on Mozilla Thuderbird?
One thing that cought me a
On Monday 12 June 2006 20:18, Alexandros Vellis wrote:
> Personally I use Evolution.
I've tried Evolution but I found it was really annoying to use with the
keyboard mostly/only (because the meaning of different keys change meaning)
whereas kmail can be operated almost entirely from the keyboard
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 15:00 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> So, is there a *good* GUI client that ppl are more commonly using? It has
> to work under FreeBSD ...
Personally I use Evolution.
If you are looking for something lighter and faster, Sylpheed is very
feature-rich, however it does not
+-le 11/06/2006 19:38 -0300, Marc G. Fournier a dit :
| On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
|
|> +-le 10/06/2006 15:00 -0300, Marc G. Fournier a dit :
|> |
|> | growing tired of pine after many years, am trying to find a good client
|> | ... just installed balsa, but for the life of me,
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
+-le 10/06/2006 15:00 -0300, Marc G. Fournier a dit :
|
| growing tired of pine after many years, am trying to find a good client ...
| just installed balsa, but for the life of me, I can't get it to display all
| of my 'sub-folders', only my INBOX ...
+-le 10/06/2006 15:00 -0300, Marc G. Fournier a dit :
|
| growing tired of pine after many years, am trying to find a good client ...
| just installed balsa, but for the life of me, I can't get it to display all
| of my 'sub-folders', only my INBOX ...
|
| So, is there a *good* GUI client that pp
Daniel O'Connor schrieb:
> On Sunday 11 June 2006 03:30, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> growing tired of pine after many years, am trying to find a good client
>> ... just installed balsa, but for the life of me, I can't get it to
>> display all of my 'sub-folders', only my INBOX ...
>>
>> So, is there
On Saturday 10 June 2006 15:49, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> The least sucky email client I have tried so far is KMail.
I have to concur. I use Kmail via Kontact almost exclusively.
wt
--
Warren Turkal, Research Associate III/Systems Administrator
Colorado State University, Dept. of Atmospheric Rese
On Sunday 11 June 2006 03:30, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> growing tired of pine after many years, am trying to find a good client
> ... just installed balsa, but for the life of me, I can't get it to
> display all of my 'sub-folders', only my INBOX ...
>
> So, is there a *good* GUI client that ppl ar
growing tired of pine after many years, am trying to find a good client
... just installed balsa, but for the life of me, I can't get it to
display all of my 'sub-folders', only my INBOX ...
So, is there a *good* GUI client that ppl are more commonly using? It has
to work under FreeBSD ...
24 matches
Mail list logo
